Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

If she wants to, do it. But why should a company invest in training someone who will quit the moment she gets pregnant? I might subconsciously favor men in hiring if I were a manager in Utah, myself. And she could be a housewife, no one's stopping her. She's married.

To me it sounds like she wants to be a housewife now. Even though she's not pregnant. She just wants the role of being at home instead of out working.

Honestly, I felt (feel) the same. I was always yearning for the day that I could just stay at home. I liked my jobs well enough. I just wanted to be at home more. I've been jealous of my friends who have been able to be a housewife even before children. But we couldn't justify it financially.

Also, my after-college job sought me out, knew from the first interview that I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, and hired me anyway. At a pretty significant salary. About two years later I quit because I had a newborn. They were sad that I left, but fully supported my decision. Not all managers are opposed to women quitting when they have children.

The best part of the book Lean In was to "not leave before you leave." No doubt it was your commitment to the job that meant they would hire you, DL. And the Church would be awfully hypocritical to discourage you choosing to raise your children.

I don't see a justification for someone being a homemaker sans kids. I don't think a corporate lifestyle is the only way to build a useful life, but I would go crazy without useful volunteer work or something outside my living quarters.

I do think it's fair for both men and women to realize that opting to take an extended sabbatical means that should you choose to re-enter the workforce, you won't be at the same level as your peers who worked that whole time, and to not complain if you take a major cut in pay or prestige. I think for both men and women interested in raising kids full-time, finding work that is more flexible and suited to that lifestyle is a very good idea. (We laugh at the elementary teachers and other less-prestigious jobs, but it really is easier to have a personal life in a job like that than, say, a corporate 60 hour per week one.)

I have several friends who have quit their jobs to pursue art of music full-time. There aren't just two "lifestyles" possible in this world.

Portia wrote:We laugh at the elementary teachers and other less-prestigious jobs, but it really is easier to have a personal life in a job like that than, say, a corporate 60 hour per week one.

Do we?

And do you really imagine that most teachers don't spend an extra 4 or so hours a day grading and planning?

A certain type of upwardly mobile man or woman in a job that doesn't deal with children does sometimes have a patronizing 'tude to teachers in this country. Just look at our politicians! >.<

I am not sure what teaching tracks are best for combining family with childrearing. Marguerite spoke to her father being the parent who was present more often, and whose scheduled matched theirs. The schoolteachers I've known have had no problem jumping back in to teaching after taking time off; raising children is respected/near mandatory in my home state. And no one can argue it is not a relevant skill!

My career track is fairly hostile to time off for mothers and fathers.

Sadly, I may have been one of the people looking down my nose at el ed majors, thinking it was something "easy" or "non-threatening." Obviously, I was a putz. I miss my job in education...

UffishThought wrote:

Portia wrote:We laugh at the elementary teachers and other less-prestigious jobs, but it really is easier to have a personal life in a job like that than, say, a corporate 60 hour per week one.

Do we?

And do you really imagine that most teachers don't spend an extra 4 or so hours a day grading and planning?

You don't live in Texas, do you? Even my unemployed friends give me crap about being a teacher, and I'm spending at least 1-2 hours after school everyday to rehearse with kids, plus grading, plus Saturday speech tournaments/rehearsal clinics, plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments. This does not include my spring schedule of directing two shows.

But, according to some, I don't work as hard as one of my other friends because she's actually in her office for all of those hours, and I'm not. It's definitely a prevalent attitude here in Texas.

Imogen wrote:

UffishThought wrote:

Portia wrote:We laugh at the elementary teachers and other less-prestigious jobs, but it really is easier to have a personal life in a job like that than, say, a corporate 60 hour per week one.

Do we?

And do you really imagine that most teachers don't spend an extra 4 or so hours a day grading and planning?

You don't live in Texas, do you? Even my unemployed friends give me crap about being a teacher, and I'm spending at least 1-2 hours after school everyday to rehearse with kids, plus grading, plus Saturday speech tournaments/rehearsal clinics, plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments. This does not include my spring schedule of directing two shows.

But, according to some, I don't work as hard as one of my other friends because she's actually in her office for all of those hours, and I'm not. It's definitely a prevalent attitude here in Texas.

Plus staff meetings, department meetings, grade-level meetings, UIL academics meetings, evening and weekend professional development, contacting parents about behavioral and academic concerns, open house, Saturday school, after school tutoring...

I don't do some of those things since I teach an elective, and my district REFUSES to do UIL theater at the middle school level because some people are too lazy. Those people make me rage. They're the reason people think teachers are lazy.

Imogen wrote:

UffishThought wrote:

Portia wrote:We laugh at the elementary teachers and other less-prestigious jobs, but it really is easier to have a personal life in a job like that than, say, a corporate 60 hour per week one.

Do we?

And do you really imagine that most teachers don't spend an extra 4 or so hours a day grading and planning?

You don't live in Texas, do you? Even my unemployed friends give me crap about being a teacher, and I'm spending at least 1-2 hours after school everyday to rehearse with kids, plus grading, plus Saturday speech tournaments/rehearsal clinics, plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments. This does not include my spring schedule of directing two shows.

But, according to some, I don't work as hard as one of my other friends because she's actually in her office for all of those hours, and I'm not. It's definitely a prevalent attitude here in Texas.

Here is my favorite response to that:

There are many paths to becoming a teacher. Some people start out by studying education, but some people come to the profession more indirectly, through certifications or other paths. This means that if you really wanted to you could become a teacher. That career path is wide open. And yet, you haven't chosen it. You haven't put your money where your mouth is. That fact alone is one of the clearest indicators that you don't actually believe what you're saying. If you thought that teaching was really that easy, if you thought it was such a scam, you'd be all in. The fact that you're not indicates that deep down, you know that's not the case. Whether it's the long hours, the low pay, the difficult work environment or the lack of respect, there's something difficult about the profession that keeps you from joining the ranks, but apparently it doesn't keep you from shooting your mouth off and saying things that, deep down, you don't really think are true.

Imogen wrote:plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments

Sorry, this is slightly irrelevant, but do you still literally cut pieces for speech tournaments? I remember spending hours after school with the speech and debate team and we would literally cut and paste our speeches/evidence/etc.

mic0 wrote:

Imogen wrote:plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments

Sorry, this is slightly irrelevant, but do you still literally cut pieces for speech tournaments? I remember spending hours after school with the speech and debate team and we would literally cut and paste our speeches/evidence/etc.

I did cut and paste jobs on my debate speeches sometimes.

mic0 wrote:

Imogen wrote:plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments

Sorry, this is slightly irrelevant, but do you still literally cut pieces for speech tournaments? I remember spending hours after school with the speech and debate team and we would literally cut and paste our speeches/evidence/etc.

Depends on the piece. I'll literally cut and paste proses and poetrys from photocopies onto black paper to go in the page protectors to go in the tiny binders, but usually I just mark stuff out with black marker or pen and hand scripts to my kids.

Debaters don't need to cut and paste anymore now that they can use their laptops in rounds.

SO MUCH WORK THOUGH.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/74498/

Wooo, someone referenced my favorite article!

Also, this:

The Audience wrote:Wouldn't it be so pleasantly romantic (and thankfully it happens all the time) if an independent, motivated woman with no need of a breadwinner were interested in, and remained with her man anyways? Isn't that a greater manifestation of love?

Imogen wrote:

mic0 wrote:

Imogen wrote:plus time cutting pieces for said speech tournaments

Sorry, this is slightly irrelevant, but do you still literally cut pieces for speech tournaments? I remember spending hours after school with the speech and debate team and we would literally cut and paste our speeches/evidence/etc.

Depends on the piece. I'll literally cut and paste proses and poetrys from photocopies onto black paper to go in the page protectors to go in the tiny binders, but usually I just mark stuff out with black marker or pen and hand scripts to my kids.

Debaters don't need to cut and paste anymore now that they can use their laptops in rounds.

SO MUCH WORK THOUGH.

THEY CAN USE THEIR LAPTOPS IN ROUNDS? WHAT THE COFFEE?!

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/74498/

Wooo, someone referenced my favorite article!

Also, this:

The Audience wrote:Wouldn't it be so pleasantly romantic (and thankfully it happens all the time) if an independent, motivated woman with no need of a breadwinner were interested in, and remained with her man anyways? Isn't that a greater manifestation of love?

I think the point of the question is that that's exactly what this person wants, he just doesn't see how it could ever possibly happen.

yayfulness wrote:

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/74498/

Wooo, someone referenced my favorite article!

Also, this:

The Audience wrote:Wouldn't it be so pleasantly romantic (and thankfully it happens all the time) if an independent, motivated woman with no need of a breadwinner were interested in, and remained with her man anyways? Isn't that a greater manifestation of love?

I think the point of the question is that that's exactly what this person wants, he just doesn't see how it could ever possibly happen.

OK, that's fair. But that's not his job in the relationship. His job isn't to be attracted to himself. His job isn't even to imagine someone being attracted to himself. His job is to just be the best himself he can be, and trust that that's enough.

The things we're best at are often the things we value the least in ourselves, because they come to us so easily that they seem trivial. So the reader is probably underestimating what he brings to the table, simply because it seems so easy or so insufficient. I spend a fair amount of time on feminist forums, and while they are full of strong, independent women, they're also full of women who are emotionally exhausted from having to fight for a place at the table (particularly if they're Mormon). In those spaces, spouses/boyfriends/SOs who want to support, listen, help, provide a shoulder to cry on without clipping the wings of the women they love are rare and worth their weight in gold. (Or perhaps we should say that their price is "above rubies," in keeping with the feminist theme. )

I'll also say that I think it's completely fair for someone to ask a SO what she values most in him or in the relationship, so that he has a better idea of what he's doing that she's attracted to. (I'm a fan of analysis in general, though, so hopefully this girl is, too.) Self-worth ultimately has to come from one's self, but it's OK to ask friends and family and SOs for help in better understanding one's self.

Tally M. wrote:THEY CAN USE THEIR LAPTOPS IN ROUNDS? WHAT THE COFFEE?!

Yup. The wireless has to be turned off, but debaters and extempers can now use their laptops to access their evidence. Some still do it the old fashioned way and use cards, but I'm starting to see more laptops in rounds, especially from the wealthier or more hardcore schools.


Katya, loved your response! I'm going to Facebook that to start my Monday. Then I will Facebook that quote from The Audience because it is exactly how I feel!

Katya wrote:http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/74498/

Wooo, someone referenced my favorite article!

Also, this:

The Audience wrote:Wouldn't it be so pleasantly romantic (and thankfully it happens all the time) if an independent, motivated woman with no need of a breadwinner were interested in, and remained with her man anyways? Isn't that a greater manifestation of love?

I thought both answers were really very good. I had been thinking vaguely along the same lines.

This isn't really an answer, but I think it's interesting that the board is being so open about writer applications. It always used to be "check the archives!" in varying forms of niceness.

Maybe they really need more writers.