Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/68846/

I appreciate the answers of Eirene, yayfulness, and Zedability. A lot of good points in all of them.

However, I disagree with almost everything Kirke said, and I'm going to tell you why in great detail. Not to try to debate with a brick wall, mind you, but because a) I actually have some insight to add and b) since I was adding that insight anyway, I decided to go all the way and give all my opinions.

First, I don't like that he implies success in work and success in family are mutually exclusive, and that a job is only a means to an end. While the focus on family is a good thing, he seems to think that one cannot or should not find joy and fulfillment in a job or seek to advance in a career, as that could take joy and time away from family. Before you think I'm exaggerating, note that he said himself that he finds it odd for people to be "excited about careers even though they agree that family is the way to real happiness." Can we not find happiness in more than one thing in life? (And what is this "real happiness" anyway?) Must love of family override everything else? This reminds me of an interpretation I heard of the "love God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength" commandment - that your love of God should be so overpowering that you hate everyone else by comparison. That's not healthy.

Also, in both of his sections he has these subtle little bits that really rub me the wrong way. In his "non-member perspective" he mentions that he could work, his wife could work, or they could both work part time - but in "my perspective" no mention is made of the possibility of his wife working AT ALL. Back to "non-member," if his wife works that will be difficult for her because of course she's going to get pregnant immediately and continue to pop out babies in quick succession for at least a decade.

WHAT.

WHAT.

WHAT.

No, I don't think that "focusing on family" means "have as many children as you can as quickly as you can." I love kids, look forward to having them, and plan to stay home with them, but I am NOT popping them out like my vagina is a clown car. Sorry.

And then he continues with how difficult it would be for them to work out their schedules if the both work, so really, what makes the most sense is for the man to work. It's not that we want you to give up any idea of a career, ladies, but really, isn't it just logical for you to say home while your man works?

Not only is that mindset incredibly old-fashioned for obvious reasons, there's also something that he is forgetting and that no one else really addressed: small businesses, especially online ones, are BOOMING. And do you know who is starting the majority most of these businesses? Women. Two to one over men, women are starting their own businesses, many of which can be done while they are home. Take me for example. I work 8-10 hours on an average day, but do it throughout the day in between exercising, cleaning, taking Marduk to school, making food, etc. Plus, I'm currently moving my business in a direction that will allow me to earn more while working less, meaning I could easily take care of children while still contributing significantly to our finances, so my husband could either work full-time and we could live really comfortably or he could work a more part-time schedule and be home. Or, even better, we could both work from home, bringing in all the dollars while still always being there for our kids and each other. (To go back to my earlier argument about passion for a career vs. family as top priority - don't you dare tell me that being excited about and finding joy in a successful business I built pretty much by myself is something I should be putting aside for a family, something I can't possibly desire if family is a top priority. My passion for my business is the exact thing that will allow me and my husband to have more time for our family.)

Finally, Kirke's whole answer validates the fears of the asker, when to my thinking she is perfectly within her right to be uncomfortable with how she perceives the opinions of the church. My advice to her is close to what yayfulness said: concern yourself with the doctrines of the church; not the culture, not even the well-meaning opinions of general authorities and such. Not that those should be completely disregarded, but they should have only a little if any influence. Even better, concern yourself with developing a relationship with Heavenly Father, Christ, the Spirit, and draw strongly on that to determine how you should live your life. Even the Church has failings, and while I do consider myself a strong member there are certain things I do that others would frown upon. I swear sometimes. I wear pants to church on occasion. I'm often wearing the lowest-cut top in the chapel (though that also has a lot to do with how much fabric it takes to cover certain areas...). I've been for gay rights, including marriage, for years. My mother is scandalized by my relationship with Marduk (we've been dating for over two years without even getting engaged, and also she saw him touch my butt once). And you know what? Don't care. As far as I can tell - and I am asking and pondering - none of these things are wrong, and I'm not going to let the culture or opinions of the Church tell me otherwise.

I think with the advent of online businesses, it's really creating new situations that traditional roles don't even apply to.

I have trouble coming up with good thoughts to add to this issue, because I've really always wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. That being said, I feel like it's better to trust people to pray about it and make the best decisions for themselves, as opposed to assuming that anyone who doesn't conform to culture must not be making the right decision unless I can see the obvious exception. I'm sure some people are making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, but I'm also sure most people are trying to do the right thing, and since I can't tell the difference from the outside, I generally just like to shut up and let people govern their own lives without assuming they should do what I want to do. However, since I've never really had a desire to be a working mom, I feel like I don't have many good insights of affirmation to add when the issue comes up.

Hey, bob, when i am at a computerand not my phone i am going to excitedly agree with you.

Zedability wrote:I have trouble coming up with good thoughts to add to this issue, because I've really always wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. That being said, I feel like it's better to trust people to pray about it and make the best decisions for themselves, as opposed to assuming that anyone who doesn't conform to culture must not be making the right decision unless I can see the obvious exception. I'm sure some people are making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, but I'm also sure most people are trying to do the right thing, and since I can't tell the difference from the outside, I generally just like to shut up and let people govern their own lives without assuming they should do what I want to do. However, since I've never really had a desire to be a working mom, I feel like I don't have many good insights of affirmation to add when the issue comes up.

Too often in our rush to make sure women are being treated fairly we forget that being a homemaker is a difficult, fulfilling, legitimate occupation, and those who desire and choose it are in no way less valuable than those who choose to work. That is an important thing to remember, and I'm glad you stood up for those who desire that traditional role for themselves. I don't like the implication that homemaking is all someone is good for, but much worse is the greater implication that homemaking is not worthwhile.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

Zedability wrote:I have trouble coming up with good thoughts to add to this issue, because I've really always wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. That being said, I feel like it's better to trust people to pray about it and make the best decisions for themselves, as opposed to assuming that anyone who doesn't conform to culture must not be making the right decision unless I can see the obvious exception. I'm sure some people are making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, but I'm also sure most people are trying to do the right thing, and since I can't tell the difference from the outside, I generally just like to shut up and let people govern their own lives without assuming they should do what I want to do. However, since I've never really had a desire to be a working mom, I feel like I don't have many good insights of affirmation to add when the issue comes up.

Too often in our rush to make sure women are being treated fairly we forget that being a homemaker is a difficult, fulfilling, legitimate occupation, and those who desire and choose it are in no way less valuable than those who choose to work. That is an important thing to remember, and I'm glad you stood up for those who desire that traditional role for themselves. I don't like the implication that homemaking is all someone is good for, but much worse is the greater implication that homemaking is not worthwhile.

Yeah Plus, while I plan to be a homemaker, it would definitely rub me the wrong way if my husband expected me to be a homemaker.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:First, I don't like that he implies success in work and success in family are mutually exclusive, and that a job is only a means to an end. While the focus on family is a good thing, he seems to think that one cannot or should not find joy and fulfillment in a job or seek to advance in a career, as that could take joy and time away from family. Before you think I'm exaggerating, note that he said himself that he finds it odd for people to be "excited about careers even though they agree that family is the way to real happiness." Can we not find happiness in more than one thing in life? (And what is this "real happiness" anyway?) Must love of family override everything else? This reminds me of an interpretation I heard of the "love God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength" commandment - that your love of God should be so overpowering that you hate everyone else by comparison. That's not healthy.

P. D. Kirke wrote:Just like there are no soul-mates, I think there are no soul-careers or soul-hobbies. . . .

In my experience, any kind of practical math/science/programming thing I really get involved in tends to be interesting to me. Beyond that, I don't have a specific, overwhelming interest or talent for any particular thing. So I decided as long as I'm not really sure exactly which of many interesting engineering opportunities is the absolute best, I may as well just commit to ones that help my resume and have potential to make me lots of money. (Board Question #68206)

So, this is going to sound callous, but I sort of follow the money. (Obviously I'll pray about stuff, but we're assuming that hasn't resulted in any especially clear direction.) If I don't care where I live, I may as well get paid well to live there. If I don't care where I go to college, I may as well go somewhere that will help my career (a.k.a. future money). (Board Question #68612)

By his own admission, Kirke doesn't seem to be particularly passionate about his work, other than that it is reasonably interesting and it is a means to an end (namely, making money). Because of that, I don't think he understands how anyone could be passionate about their career, therefore, any woman who wants to work instead of stay at home must be motivated by selfishness or something similar.

Okay, at a computer now and I can say: Bob! I totally agree with you! And when I first read Kirke's answer I wanted to write some ranty things about his representation of a non-LDS couple, but was worried that I'm always being That Person. But seriously, Kirke did not grow up in a closed-off society (I know, because at least part of his childhood was spent in the same place as me), so I'm surprised about how he portrayed some hypothetical non-LDS couple.

Katya wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:First, I don't like that he implies success in work and success in family are mutually exclusive, and that a job is only a means to an end. While the focus on family is a good thing, he seems to think that one cannot or should not find joy and fulfillment in a job or seek to advance in a career, as that could take joy and time away from family. Before you think I'm exaggerating, note that he said himself that he finds it odd for people to be "excited about careers even though they agree that family is the way to real happiness." Can we not find happiness in more than one thing in life? (And what is this "real happiness" anyway?) Must love of family override everything else? This reminds me of an interpretation I heard of the "love God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength" commandment - that your love of God should be so overpowering that you hate everyone else by comparison. That's not healthy.

P. D. Kirke wrote:Just like there are no soul-mates, I think there are no soul-careers or soul-hobbies. . . .

In my experience, any kind of practical math/science/programming thing I really get involved in tends to be interesting to me. Beyond that, I don't have a specific, overwhelming interest or talent for any particular thing. So I decided as long as I'm not really sure exactly which of many interesting engineering opportunities is the absolute best, I may as well just commit to ones that help my resume and have potential to make me lots of money. (Board Question #68206)

So, this is going to sound callous, but I sort of follow the money. (Obviously I'll pray about stuff, but we're assuming that hasn't resulted in any especially clear direction.) If I don't care where I live, I may as well get paid well to live there. If I don't care where I go to college, I may as well go somewhere that will help my career (a.k.a. future money). (Board Question #68612)

By his own admission, Kirke doesn't seem to be particularly passionate about his work, other than that it is reasonably interesting and it is a means to an end (namely, making money). Because of that, I don't think he understands how anyone could be passionate about their career, therefore, any woman who wants to work instead of stay at home must be motivated by selfishness or something similar.

I don't understand why you would go into a career you're not passionate about. Both my parents did that, and they were never really happy about it. My dad wanted me to go into engineering, and my mom wanted me to do what makes me happy. And I am SO HAPPY teaching. I love my kids. I love watching them grow as artists and laughing with them. I love creating a bond with them. If I had loved engineering I'm sure I'd be just as happy. I see going into a career you don't care about the same as being in a relationship you don't care about: you're gonna be doing this a long time. Why not LOOOOOVE it?

Kirke reminds me of my dad, and while I love him, he and I fight all the time, and I find that Kirke's answers (this one in particular (hi i'm not a mormon and would love to stay home with my kids, but we'll see what happens)) rub me the wrong way quite often. But, he's being true to what he believes, and he's never purposely disrespectful (though i think his comments on non-mormons kinda walk the line. i certainly find them offensive at times), and i think he would be respectful in replying to all of us. i would like to hear more form him on this topic.

Imogen wrote:I don't understand why you would go into a career you're not passionate about.

Security, necessity, or ability. My dad's original career isn't an option for him anymore, and he's been looking for a plausible (one he doesn't hate, but can still pay the bills) new job for almost a decade now. My family gets by on what my mom can bring in as a dental assistant and their savings, but cash is tight. Once he does find a job, he won't be able to stop--retirement is expensive, and it's doubtful he'll be able to afford it. You can bet he's trying to steer my little brothers toward careers that have good job security and a decent paycheck.

Careers you're passionate about are for people who can afford them, or whose passions lie in high-paying areas.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:Also, in both of his sections he has these subtle little bits that really rub me the wrong way. In his "non-member perspective" he mentions that he could work, his wife could work, or they could both work part time - but in "my perspective" no mention is made of the possibility of his wife working AT ALL. Back to "non-member," if his wife works that will be difficult for her because of course she's going to get pregnant immediately and continue to pop out babies in quick succession for at least a decade.

WHAT.

WHAT.

WHAT.

No, I don't think that "focusing on family" means "have as many children as you can as quickly as you can." I love kids, look forward to having them, and plan to stay home with them, but I am NOT popping them out like my vagina is a clown car. Sorry.

And then he continues with how difficult it would be for them to work out their schedules if the both work, so really, what makes the most sense is for the man to work. It's not that we want you to give up any idea of a career, ladies, but really, isn't it just logical for you to say home while your man works?

I already gave my opinions on the question in general, but I will say that I think Kirke's explanations of his future family become significantly less sexist when you consider that he's actually engaged, so instead of him hypothetically assuming that any future wife of his will not want a career and will want to have lots of babies in a row, he's just saying that that's what he and his actual fiancee have decided to do, which is a perfectly legitimate choice. Although, to be fair, he hadn't announced his engagement yet when that question posted, and I could definitely see reading that part of his answer as what he thinks any husband and wife should do, rather than a personal explanation of what he and his fiancee had actually agreed to do.

Eirene, that's a great point, because it definitely makes a difference

Zedability wrote:I think with the advent of online businesses, it's really creating new situations that traditional roles don't even apply to.

I have trouble coming up with good thoughts to add to this issue, because I've really always wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. That being said, I feel like it's better to trust people to pray about it and make the best decisions for themselves, as opposed to assuming that anyone who doesn't conform to culture must not be making the right decision unless I can see the obvious exception. I'm sure some people are making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, but I'm also sure most people are trying to do the right thing, and since I can't tell the difference from the outside, I generally just like to shut up and let people govern their own lives without assuming they should do what I want to do. However, since I've never really had a desire to be a working mom, I feel like I don't have many good insights of affirmation to add when the issue comes up.

Are you going to be a working childless woman? Will you expect your missionary to financially support you upon his return? Do you work now? (Do they let Canadians work? With your Secret Service name change, I'm not even sure if you ARE Canadian!)

Katya wrote:By his own admission, Kirke doesn't seem to be particularly passionate about his work, other than that it is reasonably interesting and it is a means to an end (namely, making money). Because of that, I don't think he understands how anyone could be passionate about their career, therefore, any woman who wants to work instead of stay at home must be motivated by selfishness or something similar.

Seems like a Canadian attitude to work, protest as he might. "Well it's all just about making the loonies and bringing home the Canadian bacon dontchyaknow." Americans, men and women alike, have long been known for valuing and finding joy, nay, their identities, in work per se.

UffishThought wrote:

Imogen wrote:I don't understand why you would go into a career you're not passionate about.

Security, necessity, or ability. My dad's original career isn't an option for him anymore, and he's been looking for a plausible (one he doesn't hate, but can still pay the bills) new job for almost a decade now. My family gets by on what my mom can bring in as a dental assistant and their savings, but cash is tight. Once he does find a job, he won't be able to stop--retirement is expensive, and it's doubtful he'll be able to afford it. You can bet he's trying to steer my little brothers toward careers that have good job security and a decent paycheck.

Careers you're passionate about are for people who can afford them, or whose passions lie in high-paying areas.

My passion is teaching. Certainly not secure since I teach an art, or high paying, nor can i "afford" the amount i get paid for what i do.

My mission president gave us some great advice:

"Think of all the jobs that you would love to do. Now, decide which of those could support your family. Eliminate the rest, and pick the one you like most of the leftovers."

It's interesting that there exists this dichotomy in the Mormon viewpoint. I'd LOVE a husband to support me, not going to lie, but I'm not that interested in having kids, especially not soon, and if I do, I would be happy to have a nanny or daycare. I am not hugely corporate-career-ladder oriented either, though I like success and recognition. Ergo, I'm forced to conclude that my dream family arrangement is "trophy wife." If this makes me sound lazy and shallow, so be it. I think the advantage of money is that it gives you the freedom to do what you like to do. For me, I'd like to write full-time, and a "spouse has a regular, lucrative career" arrangement is common enough.

A while back Eirene (I believe) referenced her accomplished, well-educated mother. My mother didn't ever (ever!) work, and I don't feel like I benefited by having her home full-time more than I would have if she'd had outside interests. When I was a kid I always wished I were the lucky one who got to stay at school for extended care. I'm sure everyone's family decisions are influenced by their home life. I know my aversion to commitment and abandonment complex come from a very unKirkeian upbringing. (To be clear, I would have cried with joy as a child to have nice, normal Canadian upper-class parents who kept pumping out well-groomed Aryan children. (Kirke looks like a poster boy for the Hitler Youth circa 1933. Don't hold it against him.) But then I wouldn't be me, now would I?)

Tangentially related thoughts here.

Eirene wrote:

bobtheenchantedone wrote:Also, in both of his sections he has these subtle little bits that really rub me the wrong way. In his "non-member perspective" he mentions that he could work, his wife could work, or they could both work part time - but in "my perspective" no mention is made of the possibility of his wife working AT ALL. Back to "non-member," if his wife works that will be difficult for her because of course she's going to get pregnant immediately and continue to pop out babies in quick succession for at least a decade.

WHAT.

WHAT.

WHAT.

No, I don't think that "focusing on family" means "have as many children as you can as quickly as you can." I love kids, look forward to having them, and plan to stay home with them, but I am NOT popping them out like my vagina is a clown car. Sorry.

And then he continues with how difficult it would be for them to work out their schedules if the both work, so really, what makes the most sense is for the man to work. It's not that we want you to give up any idea of a career, ladies, but really, isn't it just logical for you to say home while your man works?

I already gave my opinions on the question in general, but I will say that I think Kirke's explanations of his future family become significantly less sexist when you consider that he's actually engaged, so instead of him hypothetically assuming that any future wife of his will not want a career and will want to have lots of babies in a row, he's just saying that that's what he and his actual fiancee have decided to do, which is a perfectly legitimate choice. Although, to be fair, he hadn't announced his engagement yet when that question posted, and I could definitely see reading that part of his answer as what he thinks any husband and wife should do, rather than a personal explanation of what he and his fiancee had actually agreed to do.

That's certainly applicable to himself, and I considered adding a note to that effect - that I realized this was his opinion and he would only marry someone who shared that opinion/desired that role. What bothered me is in the second section, where he was ostensibly was trying to give the viewpoint of a non-member couple, he still assumed that they would act exactly as he would himself. That just marginalizes those with non-traditional desires all the more - your desire to work out of the home is so extreme that even a non-member couple would find it odd!

UffishThought wrote:Careers you're passionate about are for people who can afford them, or whose passions lie in high-paying areas.

Not necessarily, again largely due to the internet. Basically anyone with enough work and a good enough idea can find a way to make their passions turn into cash. Also, not everyone desires the same standard of living, and may be happy to live less well in order to keep the job they love.

Portia wrote:Are you going to be a working childless woman? Will you expect your missionary to financially support you upon his return? Do you work now? (Do they let Canadians work? With your Secret Service name change, I'm not even sure if you ARE Canadian!)

I'm in the process of battling some stupid immigration snafu in order to have a job on campus. (There's been a very frustrating delay in getting my SSN...).

If I never got married, or if I was unable to have children, I'd happily pursue a career in my chosen field, since I really like my major (and plan on getting a graduate degree whether or not I get married and have kids). If I had kids, but it was financially necessary for my family for me to work, or if I unexpectedly felt prompted to, or if staying at home all day was driving me insane, I'd be happy to do it. As it is, though, my missionary is majoring in something very employable, and we both agree that our current hypothetical optimal situation would let me stay home. (To which he was quick to add: unless you want to work, I'd be fine with that too.)

Basically, in the ideal scenario where there are no barriers to me working or staying home, I'd choose staying home (while my kids were young. Once they're all in school or something, I can see myself wanting to work). But there are tons of scenarios that would result in me being a happy working mom. Or happy working not-a-mom, as the case may be.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

UffishThought wrote:Careers you're passionate about are for people who can afford them, or whose passions lie in high-paying areas.

Not necessarily, again largely due to the internet. Basically anyone with enough work and a good enough idea can find a way to make their passions turn into cash. Also, not everyone desires the same standard of living, and may be happy to live less well in order to keep the job they love.

Fair enough, but at nearly 60 with no marketing skills and a product without a great demand, the internet didn't help my dad in his art career much. And though he might be okay with lower standard of living, he knows my mother's happiness is already suffering, and he feels responsible. Also, for the record, I'll be a high school teacher next year, and my dad is thrilled with my career choice. He's not pushing my siblings and I to be rich, he just wants to make sure we'll have a roof over our heads and food on our tables, because he knows how miserable it feels not to be able to provide those things.

I guess my issue with Imogen's and your statements is the same as yours with mine: they're all too absolute. So here, in more general terms, is what I mean. Sometimes, working a job you don't love is the lesser of two evils. And in those cases, the greater evil is often financial necessity. (And I'm probably defensive because this is personal for me. Sorry about that. And the thread hijacking.)