Is it worth it raising daughters in the church?

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

Not yet, not really. It isn’t a part of her narrative. We talk about the cultural origins of sexism in history, and some of how we see it in the church, but mostly we are talking over her head to each other. She and I watched “Little Women” last weekend, and I pointed out that women’s rights have come a long way since then since we can vote, we can write books under our own names, we can get jobs on our own merits. She did some head nodding, so something theoretically got through.

In my home, my husband stays at home and takes care of our children because he is the most qualified to do so (seriously, he makes AMAZING food!) and it fits our circumstances the best. My husband and I talk about the cultural divide between priesthood holders and R.S., but in our home it is a short gap. Our focus is on providing, presiding, and nurturing our children – and our efforts go towards those goals. In broad strokes, I may be the one who goes to work to provide for us, but my husband provides the structure that the children need. My husband may preside over meetings in our family, but in some things I have the distance and vision to see what the next steps are. There are times that I am not very nurturing and my husband steps in.

Thanks, Amy. I love that example of working together as equal partners.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

This isn’t really a great mantra I have, but it’s one I have anyway: “The one who writes the checks makes the decisions.” First of all, it’s kind of a might makes right way to look at things, but it does keep my perspective a bit in some important ways. When Benson gave his infamous talk to the “Mothers in Zion,” urging them to quit their jobs and go back to the kitchen, er, home, this mantra began as an embryonic seed in the back of my mind. Maybe that was the Spirit whispering that I needed to make and own my own choices (which also happened). The mantra helps me in a bunch of ways:

1) it reminds me that if you want to have control over your life you have to have financial independence.

2) it’s a good reminder that the people who have to live with the decisions have to be the ones making the choices. Other people can have opinions and make judgments, but they aren’t the ones living with those choices, so their opinions are just that. They aren’t the ones living my life. I have to make the best decisions for me.

3) in business, sometimes we get this arrogant idea that we create a product or service, and “take it or leave it.” But the reality is that customers will buy what they like. If what we are selling isn’t what is in demand, if people aren’t buying what we sell, we need the humility to understand that it’s not working for people. Our solutions are not helpful. We need to rework them. I’d love for the church and its members to get that dose of humility once in a while. Men (and I hope women) are that they might have joy. Part of joy is having palatable choices for how to live your life.

Thanks, hawkgrrl. I wholeheartedly agree that we each need to feel free to make our own decisions! I’ve come to reject the notion that every mom should stay home with her kids. For some that is a good fit and for others it is not. I believe that pressuring that as a proof of righteousness leads to a dangerous epidemic of depression and other issues. So I am totally with you – I think that is an important principle in life – people need to feel free to choose for themselves! (Hmm… that sounds awfully similar to what we fought for in the premortal world)

But it has been my experience that a person can have decision making power without being the one making the money. Right now I choose to stay home with my young children, but my husband and I both very much think of the money he makes as “our money” and we both control it equally. I think a lot depends on the attitudes of the people involved. But really that is further proof that women (and everyone) need to be able to make that choice for themselves.

Roadrunner wrote:

I don’t feel the sexism and misogyny were a huge stumbling block for them because my wife and I both tried to call it out and explain it when we saw it. The fact that they could identify something unfair and not attribute it to God or some inherent inferiority helped. I tried to be as open as possible with them regarding church shortcomings, including in regards to equality. It may have worked well (too well??) – one of them attends church rarely, the other is a registered Democrat but will attend BYU, where Democrats are an endangered species.

Thanks, Roadrunner. I think it is so key that you taught them not to see the sexism as coming from God. That’s a gift I want to give my kids.

dande48 wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

This isn’t really a great mantra I have, but it’s one I have anyway: “The one who writes the checks makes the decisions.”

I agree with pretty much all of the points you made. I think it’s great if both spouses can and choose to work. It leads to great financial stability. It means that if something happened to one (death, divorce) the other will be okay. And it would be ABSOLUTELY awful to be financially tied to an abuser. Like you said, with business, I think we’d all be better off treating our spouses (and our Church membership) like our #1 customers. I hate it that members are treated as if they have to stick around, because of an obligation. Same with marriages. Both partners should do all they can to make sure their union is one they both want to be in. I hate to feel controlled. I think most people do.

My gut feeling is that the mantra “The one who writes the checks makes the rules”, while applying very well to business and politics, isn’t very healthy for a marriage. Even when both spouses are working, one will always make more than the other. A spouse shouldn’t feel inferior because they make less than the other, or even none at all. And likewise, a spouse shouldn’t feel superior for “making more cheddar”. They should be equal partners, striving for the well-being and happiness of one another. Income is too often equated with power and (wrongly) with worth. But in marriage of all places, it shouldn’t be.

I agree, dande48.

And nice comic… What the heck is it with the women being expected to do all the cooking for ward activities?

SamBee wrote:

I’ve heard conflicting views on this. A case against is that certain wards seem to have a Stepford Wife type thing going on even among the YW, and they will bully girls for being different.

But that happens elsewhere.

Pluses

+ It is a community in a world where communities are being killed off.

+ They will learn public speaking (a very useful skill)

+ Girls are taught to avoid promiscuity and look beyond sex.

+ A positive role for family.

Minuses

– Gender roles.

– Interviews.

– Pressure to marry young.

– Homophobia.

I think the church teaches some worthwhile things which are declining in society. Service to others is certainly one. I love seeing our RS going into action and helping a sister in need.

Yeah, it’s definitely a mixed bag. I hope to highlight the positives and neutralize the negatives as much as possible. I hope that is the best thing for my kids.

[Anonymous]

dande48:

Quote:

My gut feeling is that the mantra “The one who writes the checks makes the rules”, while applying very well to business and politics, isn’t very healthy for a marriage. Even when both spouses are working, one will always make more than the other. A spouse shouldn’t feel inferior because they make less than the other, or even none at all. And likewise, a spouse shouldn’t feel superior for “making more cheddar”. They should be equal partners, striving for the well-being and happiness of one another. Income is too often equated with power and (wrongly) with worth. But in marriage of all places, it shouldn’t be.

Yeah, I agree that’s the flaw in the mantra. It works well, IMO, in situations where someone wholly outside of one’s sphere is attempting to influence or control (e.g. advice from other church members or even the church at large or frankly, parents or other relatives). Ultimately, it just means we have to make our own choices.

Within a marriage, a non-earning spouse can still be the one “writing the checks” in terms of making the partnership flourish, contributing to the overall financial viability in non-direct-earning ways, being a full partner in decision making, etc. But they may be particularly vulnerable in the event of death, disability or abusiveness from the “earning” spouse if they are completely out of the workforce for any substantial length of time (which is why they should be very careful to be involved in financial decisions and to be a full participating partner, educating self and spouse on insurance and retirement planning needs.)

Plus, nobody should be writing checks these days. Get your points and rebates! Use your credit card, but don’t carry a balance.

[Anonymous]

I have four daughters: two still in primary and two in young women. I have struggled to balance the sexism with not being overly negative toward the church. If I feel strongly about something, I too often say it in a way that puts my husband on the defensive and that leads to other problems. What I am working on is learning how to express my views in a way that doesn’t incriminate anyone or assume the worst.

I think the leaders of the LDS church wholeheartedly want the best for society as a whole and not just the church. However, it is the disparity between where Western culture is and where the church is that makes this day and age so challenging for people who are religious. I don’t really consider myself religious anymore despite the fact that I go to church every Sunday and hold three callings. I suppose religious, to me, means adhering to the religious leaders, which I do not.

I adore the passion in the early church, and I tell my girls often about the priesthood power Joseph gave to women in those days. I tell them how the Relief Society originally had autonomy, and did not have to consult men to make a decision. I tell them that I believe the church will get back to that in their lifetimes.

I really do feel that this church is wonderful for youth. I think it does a far better job at meeting the needs of youth than it does for people who are my age (I am nearly 40). I have begun to teach my oldest daughter about sexuality and being confident and classy with her body while stressing abstinence. We don’t teach them to cover their shoulders–if they choose to wear garments when they are older, they can make that decision. We talk about clothing in sense of classiness (often use the Duchess of Cambridge as an example) and quality fabrics that don’t need to be adjusted constantly. I teach them that they can focus better on school and learning if they are completely comfortable. I don’t teach “modesty” as the church teaches it, and we talk (and laugh) a lot about what other Mormons say on this subject. It’s definitely a cultural construct.

So. . . yeah, like others said, stay LDS. The church is great socially and spiritually for youth in the 2nd and 3rd stages of faith. Teach them more complicated nuanced viewpoints as they get older.

And i love this:

[Anonymous]

Off the Rameumptom wrote:

I really do feel that this church is wonderful for youth. I think it does a far better job at meeting the needs of youth than it does for people who are my age (I am nearly 40).

I try to remind myself that the church meeting the needs of my children is indirectly meeting one of my needs… but yeah, the church isn’t that great for adults. I wonder if it’s a church thing or a general adult thing.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I try to remind myself that the church meeting the needs of my children is indirectly meeting one of my needs

Great point!

I am interesting in reading this book, “Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life” by Richard Rohr. It examines how religions meet the needs of childhood, youth, and young adulthood vs. adulthood and aging. A synopsis from patheos: “The first half is typically about building one’s life: establishing identity, discerning and responding to a sense of calling, finding love and starting a family, and so forth. The second half is more about letting go and loving: mentoring, praying, blessing, and giving to others. If the first half of life is about building the “container” of one’s life, the second half calls us to fill that container with love, compassion, etc. — and then graciously pour it out to those who need it or stand to be blessed by it.”

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I hope to provide her with several examples of life patterns to help her understand that she is not limited to just one.

I agree , and this is how I approach this as well. We talk about choices and what sort of life consequences follow. I appreciated taking her to sacrament and being able to teach my daughter how to dress modestly at an early age. And how to keep dress hemlines at the knee and how to sit properly in a dress. She has also gone to the activity days and been involved in some baking class, and a talent show. These have been really wonderful to boost her self esteem. The church provides a safe place for the girls to grow and as long as we, the parents, keep having conversations with them , and teaching them they are acceptable to God, whether it is as independent strong single career women, or as married stay at home mommies, and that they do indeed have free agency to make choices.

[Anonymous]

Only Love wrote:

But it has been my experience that a person can have decision making power without being the one making the money. Right now I choose to stay home with my young children, but my husband and I both very much think of the money he makes as “our money” and we both control it equally. I think a lot depends on the attitudes of the people involved. But really that is further proof that women (and everyone) need to be able to make that choice for themselves.

In my experience, I would venture to guess that you both consider the money he makes as joint money that is controlled equally because you husband has consented for it to be that way.

I have a BIL that is the primary breadwinner. He has a separate bank account that his spouse has no visibility into. I think he pays for rent and groceries and for his vehicle. Everything else must come from his spouses income. There are times when he can be quite gracious in paying for something that falls outside of his stated responsibilities – but it must be seen as a gift and appropriate gratitude given in return. If he wants to make a major purchase with his money he is free to do so. Theoretically the wife is also free but her income as a cashier at a local grocery store is so limited that she is always living paycheck to paycheck.

The above may be an extreme example. However, I believe it is worth considering how you might have reacted if your new spouse wanted separate bank accounts. You are both working and he agrees to pay for rent and groceries. He treats you to dinner out not infrequently. Your income goes to pay for your car, personal items, and frills (aka discretionary spending). This arrangement does not seem too terrible during the first few years.

It is when the children begin to arrive and the expenses that the husband does not cover begin to mount that it becomes more and more difficult.

Quote:

“The one who writes the checks makes the decisions.”

A less extreme example from my own marriage. I am the breadwinner and DW is a SAHM. We have joint accounts and DW pays the bills, plans the budget (with some input from me), and does the taxes. We have a standing agreement that neither of us will make a discretionary purchase over $100 without consulting the other first. All very egalitarian.

When I had my faith crisis I decided that I no longer wanted to pay tithing. DW wanted to continue but I was adamant. We do not now pay tithing on my income. DW does pay on her income for the occasional job that she might do. Technically DW is considered a full tithe payer because she pays on her income (even if that income is $0). Even in a marriage where we share financial responsibility equally it is only our money as long as I say that it is our money. I have the ultimate veto power.

Therefore, I believe that it is worth considering that decision making authority by the non-income spouse over the primary income spouses earnings is dependent to a degree on the consent, delegation, and goodwill of the primary income spouse.

IOW

hawkgrrrl wrote:

But they may be particularly vulnerable in the event of death, disability or abusiveness from the “earning” spouse if they are completely out of the workforce for any substantial length of time

[Author]

Posts