Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/76363/

I was already pondering this question before, but the Women in Business class I took last semester really made me think long and deeply about mother vs. career. I'd like to point out a couple of things that really don't get mentioned frequently.

First, the easiest option that practically no one even considers: the father can be the stay at home parent. I honestly think Marduk would do a better job taking care of the kids full time than I would, and I'm a little more interested in working than he is. Unfortunately he's currently in a better position to get schooling and a job that would pay the bills, but if something ever happened to make me working outside the home more profitable than we wouldn't even have to think about switching. Admittedly this does cause issues since the mother is the one who gets pregnant and all that, but workplaces are getting more and more flexible to accommodate this.

Also, you wouldn't know it from how we talk about families in church, but two-income households are actually fairly common these days. Many families are finding they can't survive on just one income; others decide they'd rather trade having a parent home at all times for a larger budget. I will agree that having both parents working outside the home is not an ideal situation, especially if one or more children are still very small, but it is an option and may even be necessary.

There is also the possibility of working from home. All of the things I'm currently doing - singing, photography, my jewelry business - can largely be done from my own house, even with the possibility of there being children running around. This will not work for everyone, of course, but I think most people would find it's more possible than they think. We're usually taught to think in only one way about the degrees we earn and how we can use our skills to be profitable, when really there's a much bigger world than that - most of the businesswomen who presented in my class did not have a business degree, and a couple of the ones that did were now doing something completely different.

I also find nothing wrong with deciding to delay children. I probably won't have my first until I'm 30 or so (I do not want to try to finish a singing degree while pregnant) and then may only have a couple and try to space them out a fair amount.

Above all, I really hope that question asker does not drop her other dreams and desires because she also wants to have a family. There are ways to make it work, and she shouldn't shortchange herself in order to have children. (I hope that doesn't offend anyone. For lots of people, having children is of utmost importance and anything else is secondary. I personally would really regret being unable to finish my degree or having to drop my business because I had children. These are both valid.)

It's a sad state of affairs where "a husband who is okay with you pursuing your dreams" is some kind of out-of-the-ordinary, bending-over-backwards trait. For crying out loud.

How about women make choices about their bodies and money and not middle-aged men? >.<

bobtheenchantedone wrote:First, the easiest option that practically no one even considers: the father can be the stay at home parent.

Care to nail this piece down at all? I'm not seeing how asking one spouse to choose stay-at-home parenthood over a career is the "easiest option" compared with asking the other spouse to choose stay-at-home parenthood over a career.

I mean that when a woman really wants a career but is worried about how having children will affect that, she always assumes that she will have to either give up her career for children or try to balance a day job with also being the primary nurturer (and feel all the guilt that our culture heaps upon that choice). My suggestion of the father staying home is "easiest" because it avoids both of those scenarios that women (including this question asker) are so afraid of: there will still always be a parent home, but she will be able to pursue her career. I just hate that it isn't even an option - the question asker didn't mention it, and neither did Stego Lily or Tally. We just assume, as a culture, that men cannot be stay at home parents, and I think many families would benefit hugely from considering that option.

Put another way, the default assumption is that a man will work. A woman may work, or not, but she is still assumed to be primarily responsible for child care, even if she works. I know of at least a half dozen situations where a woman gave up a job that she loved and made more money at so a man could work a job for less money, that he disliked or was at best ambivalent about, so that the woman can be the primary caregiver. That's ludicrous.

Marduk wrote:Put another way, the default assumption is that a man will work. A woman may work, or not, but she is still assumed to be primarily responsible for child care, even if she works. I know of at least a half dozen situations where a woman gave up a job that she loved and made more money at so a man could work a job for less money, that he disliked or was at best ambivalent about, so that the woman can be the primary caregiver. That's ludicrous.

I'm in complete agreement on this one. This default assumption is what is especially grating coming from some of the more junior members of the Qo12 (Christofferson, Cook). I wonder if their cultural assumptions make them think that that's what God wants. Except for a narrow band from 1950 to 1970, this was never really the reality anyway. My grandma worked full-time because her ex-husband divorced her and left her in the dust. (And was a financial drain when they were married.) My great-grandmother worked her rear off when her husband was killed in a mine. My great-great-grandmother worked harder than any of them, but this was in a barely industrialized economy that the DIYer hipsters of today think they're living in. (They're not.) My mom with her complete lack of contribution to any family finances was the exception, not the rule, through history.

Somewhat ironically, Mormonism has an especially long history of women working outside the home. Polygamy frequently led to one wife caring for all the children and the other wives going out and working. Unintended consequences, I suppose.

Marduk wrote:Put another way, the default assumption is that a man will work. A woman may work, or not, but she is still assumed to be primarily responsible for child care, even if she works. I know of at least a half dozen situations where a woman gave up a job that she loved and made more money at so a man could work a job for less money, that he disliked or was at best ambivalent about, so that the woman can be the primary caregiver. That's ludicrous.

I see this, and obviously the default matters. But doesn't saying "No sweat, the man can stay home!" take as an implicit presumption that the man doesn't face any of the same ambivalence about balancing a career with parenting? I mean, bob offered facts suggesting that that might be true in her relationship. But the question-asker didn't give us any of those facts. And is it true broadly enough to make the man staying at home the "easiest option" when the woman wants to pursue a fulfilling career?

I'm not trying to go all MRA here—I don't have much patience for any of that. It just seems to me that when a woman wants to pursue a fulfilling career, bob is offering a new default—"Woman works, man cooks"—that's bad in some of the same ways the old default—"Man works, woman cooks"—was. Isn't this all specific-relationship dependent? Why is the second the easiest option broadly?

Or maybe it's not, and bob just slightly oversold the point, and the writers just should have put the option of a stay-at-home dad out there (it's clearly a very good option for many people). It's the billing of it as the "easiest option" that I can't quite get on board with.

I am unconvinced that having a stay-at-home-parent is correlated with outcomes (separate from education, income, and general attitudes toward children and responsibility.)

I had a SAHM, and I'm a hot mess. I don't think it was good for her, I don't think it was good for me, and I don't think it was good for our overall family.

No Dice, I agree with your reasoning about why "easiest option" doesn't quite seem right. I'd also add that the "easiest option" is different for different people. I would argue that for a lot of couples, the easiest option is probably hiring a nanny and/or finding a good daycare, since that would allow both parents to pursue careers and have energy to enjoy being with their children. There are a lot of "easiest" options - just depends where you're coming from.

And, I agree with Portia that it is sad that """a husband who is okay with you pursuing your dreams" is some kind of out-of-the-ordinary, bending-over-backwards trait." We should all be trying to find partners who are okay with and actually support us in our (positive) endeavors. (It is probably not great to have an enabler if you are a drug addict. o_O Do I even need to say that?)

Sorry, micO, my dream is to become a female Baudelaire and sit around writing French poetry and smoking hashish. WHY WILL NO ONE SUPPORT MY DREAMS.

You know what, I have no doubt that there is a person out there who would support your dreams. So many francophone, hashish-loving people are out there. Waiting for you. <3

Okay, you're all right that "easiest" was not the best word choice - it would only really be the "easiest" option if she marries a guy who does want to stay home with the kids. I'm just incredibly frustrated that it doesn't even cross most peoples' minds because it's really a decent option and could work out really well in a lot of situations, but the assumption is that the woman must be the primary caregiver.

Considering that no fewer than four men in my office (and I like my office! everyone is great!) have been repeatedly referring to "babysitting" their own damn kids, this is an uphill battle. :-(

This article made me think about this discussion: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... amily.html