Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Staying Home… For a Gender Fantasy?

Every once in a awhile my church’s magazine, The Ensign, will include something alarming and objectionable.  Unfortunately, the upcoming August issue includes just such an article.  Covering a short three pages, “Staying Home…Again” (by “name withheld”) relays the story of a mother’s struggle to balance child-rearing and work.  While the subject matter is timely, the point of the story—that women have an inherent responsibility to stay at home and take care of kids and accordingly should sacrifice careers to do so—isn’t simply wrong, it’s offensive. 

 

The article begins innocently enough by describing how the anonymous author was essentially forced back to work because of the economy.  While her husband ran one business she had to assume the responsibilities of a second one when they were unable to successfully sell it.  Eventually, she began to enjoy work more than being home and struggled with how to raise her children. 

 

If the first page or so paints a refreshingly complex picture of the challenges facing modern parents, the rest of the article clings to painfully outmoded gender stereotypes.  Once the author realized that she was enjoying work more than home life, she felt guilty and, more disturbingly, described herself as having “veered” from the “path.”  Things only get worse from there: she decided to pray for forgiveness for “straying so far from my divine role” and asked God to help her to want to fulfill that role and provide her with a way to do so. 

 

Throughout the article I was astounded at how little was mentioned about the husband/father.  Why wasn’t he helping raise the children?  Why was it only the woman’s job to fix dinners and attend to household duties?  Why didn’t he feel guilt about not being at home enough?  Maybe he did feel these things, but what stands out is the fact that the author never indicates her husband was shirking his responsibilities.  Instead she insinuates that her “divine role” is to be completely domestic, while his is to gallivant through the professional world having a good time.  Not surprisingly, the article ends with a return to gender stasis: the mother stays home raising the kids and the father continues to be a semi-absent figure.   

 

The problem with this article isn’t that a woman stayed home to raise kids while a man worked (both valid choices, of course, if people find fulfillment through them), but rather that the author claimed that God required her to behave in ways that were mentally and emotionally damaging. What a person (male or female) does professionally and domestically is a private decision and shouldn’t be determined by wrongheaded social proclamations on gender roles.  In this case, the author didn’t just give up work, she also sacrificed her psychological health (and, I’d argue, her spiritual health) in favor of an absurd and unsustainable fantasy about motherhood.  In the end, I can only imagine that if this story ever had a sequel, it would resemble “The Yellow Wallpaper” more than the hollow “faith promoting” rubbish that it aspires to right now.

 

Ultimately, if The Ensign’s usual emphasis on simple hagiography is understandable, its inclusion of marginalizing gender propaganda is not.  Forcing people into roles that leave them unfulfilled will not increase anyone’s well being, nor will it bring them closer to God.  (The editors also apparently missed the irony of including in the same issue articles on computer addiction and postpartum depression.)  As a practicing Mormon myself these aren’t the values that I believe in and it saddens me when a publication that has so much potential to help people instead stoops to misguided didacticism.  

14 comments:

  1. Stumbled upon your blog. Hope you don't mind if I drop a comment.

    You say: "Once the author realized that she was enjoying work more than home life, she felt guilty and, more disturbingly, described herself as having 'veered' from the 'path.'"

    However, it is only your opinion that such a reaction ought to be described as "disturbing." For the author, perhaps the experience was enlightening. Perhaps the guilt was induced by a loving Heavenly Father who knows her children's needs better than even she considering He is their primary father. Life isn't always peaches and cream and sometimes the Lord teaches us what we ought to be doing through painful self-discovery and soul searching.

    Also, why are inherently divine gender roles always put down as being close-minded and backward?

    P.S. Have you read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" lately?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim, I hope you wrote this post in order to have a conversation.

    It's interesting you are so shocked the Ensign would include this article, considering The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

    Specifically the quote:
    By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilites, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

    I'm interested in knowing what you think about it considering some of the comments you make in the post.

    I haven't read the ensign article yet, but i'm going over there now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim this idea of womanhood and divine roles has always been something I've struggled with and I dont have children yet. However I totally understand the lady's plea for Heavenly Father to help her want to fulfill her roles. Sometimes what we want isn't always necessarily best and Heavenly Father can help us find peace in our roles. Sometimes I pray and wish that I didn't have the ambition I have and that I would be happy being home with my children. Which is probably not good either. But you are right that it is personal. What I think is commendable is that she was able to admit that she liked work better... I don't think that is something that is easily admitted. I have found that people in the church are more open and less judgmental about it than we think and most women are just trying their best. Articles like this at least open the conversation. I also don't think the article necessarily left out the husband but was just about the woman and her struggles. This response is probably all over the place but it is definitely a difficult thing for me but you are right. It is a personal decision and we need to be less judgmental of people either way. We are all just doing our best to make it. Our church is so based on personal revelation. The Ensign isn't doctrine but is a place to open conversations... I've learned to take it for what it is and make my own decisions with God.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I most definitely posted this to have a conversation! :)

    Liz, personally I don't think God induces guilt. That's not to say that people can't feel guilt because of the nature of their relationship with God at any given moment, but I don't think God is the source of guilt. More specifically, I also don't think that God calls on people to do thing that actually make them miserable. That is the problem is "divine roles" as set up by the article; they were working to make people LESS happy, not more. If a man or woman feels happier and more fulfilled having both a career and a family, she/he should do that. I would argue that God would want them to do that. I would argue that any document that says otherwise is wrong.

    Emily, I probably shouldn't be shocked. Not so much b/c of the proclamation as b/c the "member stories" in the Ensign have a long history of being doctrinally unsubstantiated and polarizing.

    Frankly, (both liz and emily) I find much of the language in the Proclamation quite disturbing. I think that if you want have a traditional nuclear family that's great (and indeed I'll probably end up with some variation of that). On the other hand, I know many people who feel unfulfilled in those roles; I don't think God would want them to feel that way, and the oft-ensuing depression can make it hard to have spiritual insights of any kind. Telling them they need to get closer to God and change their minds just doesn't cut it for me. Not everyone is the same and not everyone should be forced into the same roles. I also think that the rigidity of the Proclamation stands in sharp contrast to LDS history and indeed much of Judeo-Christian history. In other words, I'm unconvinced of the doctrinal basis of the proclamation. That's not to say I necessarily think its untrue, I just think portrays divinity in a way that isn't wholly consistent with my understanding. Luckily, it also isn't canonized as LDS doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kim, I think that if its appropriate for a man to be ambitious, its appropriate for a women. Obviously a married couple have to figure out how they'll balance family and work, but if both partners want to work I think BOTH have to sacrifice to make that happen. It's just as much the man's job to stay home at times as it is the woman's and that might be HE works less so she can work more (if that's what is best for the couple).

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I also don't think that God calls on people to do thing that actually makes them miserable."

    What about Christ's sacrifice? Rejected of men, acquainted with grief, a man of sorrows?

    Is there a single scriptural story where God gives a commandment and the immediate result of following that commandment is happiness?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Jim. I like this discussion. I've been thinking about this issue a lot. I've gone through spurts where I have a really hard time thinking about staying home (when I'm married with kids) because I don't get to teach, or I won't have as much time to write, or basically go gallivanting about the country side. I actually found this article really helpful.

    I agree with what Kim said, I think the article does a really great job of opening a conversation about the difficulties of staying home. Which i think is AWESOME because staying home is really hard. Whether you naturally love it or not.

    What your post doesn't acknowledge is what the children need. Both parents working adds a lot of stress because maintaining a home takes a lot of work (without even considering the needs of children). I live in a house by myself. Just one person. And I spend a TON of time just weeding! (or making sure the sprinklers are working!) That's just the outside!

    Practically/mechanically speaking, without going into gender roles or divine roles: homes with children work best if one parent stays home.

    I wasn't disturbed by the woman's reaction of feeling guilt and sorrow. Life is hard. We have to make difficult decisions and sacrifices. And this article shows a woman choosing to put her children's well-being before her own (at a great financial set-back).

    The essay shows a woman making the realization that sometimes the well-being of children trumps all. (our society is very adult-centric, and i think this article is refreshing)

    Her essay doesn't criticize her love of work, just that she put it before her responsibilities to her family.

    Also, I'd like to second Kim's comment about the father (this article is written by a woman to women who might be struggling with a similar issue).

    And i'll second your comment about ambition. (Although ambition doesn't have to necessarily apply to just work.) If a woman wants to work, and the family can work it out-- that's awesome. But! that's not the question this article was exploring.

    The essay deals with the question: What if you love working because it provides escape/recognition/financial security/etc, but you know your children & husband need you to be home? What's more important?
    -----------------

    The Proclamation on the family is a pretty shocking document considering our society. But it protects children. And while it might not be canonized in the scriptures, it is signed by the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve which means it is official church doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim, I find your post so heartening. The problem with the Ensign, as with all those scrupulously correlated church materials, is that they don't really offer those of us whose lives may have unfolded in other ways than the "ideal" presented by this article a real place in the church community. We become second-class members, and suffer the pitying or even condemnatory looks and condescending comments of our neighbors. We hear from the pulpit, from leaders or from people we think of as friends, that our families are not good enough, that our faith and commitment to righteousness and service and love of fellow-man is compromised or invalidated because we don't fit some preconceived mold.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @anonymous - The Ensign has made pretty strong efforts to reach out to the whole church community. Look again at the articles in the past five years. I remember reading lots of stuff directed to members who might feel like their lives are ideal: porn addicts, drug addicts, divorced, homosexual, older and single, adopted, raped, etc. Honestly, I think that we all feel like we don't fit in at one point or another.

    The truth is wherever there is a group that holds the majority (Baptists in the South, Muslims in the East, Agnostics in Europe) the minority has real tensions because they forever feel like outsiders. But the Ensign has been trying hard in the past five years to include everyone.

    That said, I didn't think the message of the story was "mothers shouldn't work" but "mothers shouldn't dislike being with their children." I used to work at a bank with a lady who would always talk positively about her children, who couldn't wait to get done with work and be with them. Working did not ruin her relationship with her kids.

    But if both mom and dad get caught up with a career at the neglect of kids . . . there's the rub.

    Though I must agree with Jim - why couldn't the husband pitch in with dinner?

    (and why doesn't the mom have a torso?)

    ReplyDelete
  11. As a stay at home mom I'm so glad someone posted on this! My biggest problem with the article wasn't even the guilt that the mother felt when she realized she didn't want to go home--not a completely healthy, but a completely understandable, attitude--but rather that it was not about going home to see her children and spend happy moments with them. It was all about going home to "change diapers...find missing shoes" and "take pride in making home-cooked meals again." That is the outdated stereotype, not a mom trying to find joy in children who are constantly needing something. THat won't ever change.

    Also, did anyone else find it disturbing that the answer to her prayer (according to her) was to let the business go into foreclosure and have to pay "hundreds of thousands of dollars"? THat seems like it would defintely have a more negative impact on the family than a working mother. Now, I agree she probably needed help adjusting her attitude (or at least realizing she had an issue coming home to her family) but I hated how this story resolved and how contrived this article was. Okay, steeping off soapbox.

    ReplyDelete
  12. While much of what I thought in response to this post has been touched upon, I would like to share a couple of (semi-unrelated) thoughts anyway.

    I come from a family where my mother stayed home most of the time, and she loved it. We went through spells where she had to work and she really didn't like that. It just wasn't her thing. Great. That worked for us. But both of my grandmothers worked their entire lives (one was divorced, the other was in a sort of egalitarian relationship that seemed a little ahead of its time). I think both found that there were pros and cons to their situations as is the case no matter what we do. But both were positive as much as they could be, and they both did something that I think is extremely important: they kept the health of their children and family at the front of their priorities, all the time.

    I've been thinking about your post for most of the afternoon, and discussed it with my mom (who currently teaches school, now that she's divorced again) and we came to a lot of the same conclusions about the matter.

    First, I think that the church (from the general authorities across the board to the newest member) is a family focused institution. I suppose you would agree. That's very important to us. Everything we do, in some way or another, focuses on families. Nuclear families, blood relatives, ward families, etc. And I think that the church tries very, very hard to be as inclusive as they possibly can. The institution surely is not perfect, but it is wonderful. And I think that the principle underlying a lot of what is taught (particularly about traditional family roles) is that we need to do whatever we can to create and maintain healthy families. I think that's a great goal.

    Unfortunately, I think as people we often misunderstand and misinterpret doctrine and policy and programs on a regular basis. I think that sometimes we fixate on what is perceived to be "the ideal" (and if you take a look at a lot of general authority families, you'll find that many of them don't exactly fit in the box themselves), and we waste a lot of time being offended and shocked when we or others fall short of our perceptions. I think that is a shame, because what works for one family obviously does not work for another.

    I was in a class one semester where the professor got on a little bit of a tangent on how he interprets the family proclamation, and I think his perspective is worth offering as an example of a healthy interpretation.

    He suggested that because the proclamation does in fact talk about ROLES (not identities, an issue I will touch in a moment), we should think in terms of roles. So, let's say for one particular family, mom is simply more qualified to be in the workforce, so dad stays home. Well, does this mean that mom and dad are not fulfilling their roles? Not necessarily. The counsel says that mothers are responsible for the nurturing of their children. It does not dictate how and when that takes place. Sometimes mom may have to delegate to dad. She still fulfills her role by making sure the children get nurtured. On the other hand, dad is delegating part of his responsibility to provide for the temporal needs of the family to mom. And sometimes, to ensure his family's safety, he delegates to the school, or the police or whatever. But it is HIS job, to make sure those things are taken care of. How he sees fit to fulfill that role, depends very much on what he and his wife feel is best. Hopefully they have prayed about it, thought about it, counseled with each other and perhaps their children about it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The point is not who does the laundry and who brings home the paycheck, so much as it is that children are in an environment where they are loved and cared for, and where their needs come first. It seems (and I haven't read the article yet either, but I will), from what has been said, that the woman in the article was dealing--to some extent-- with what she felt were selfish feelings. I don't think it's fair to judge her experience and decisions any more than it would be for her to do so to someone else. I think we all (should) do the best we can with counsel as we understand it, and we should assume others are doing the same. Of course interpreting prophetic counsel should involve prayer and fasting and a teachable heart, but nobody can judge that, really, but God Himself and the one with whom He is working. It is just as important that we not judge those (or perhaps even the counsel to which they are trying to obey) who choose to have traditional families, regardless of the sacrifice. It is, after all, that family's or couple's sacrifice--not ours.

    I mentioned briefly that I would touch upon the role/identity thing. As a sort of extension to this whole issue, I think a lot of the (often unnecessary, but not always) guilt we feel in this area is because we misunderstand the difference between a role and an identity. I believe that at some point "Mother" and "Father" will be part of an actual identity. But for now, because of the way mortal life works, it can't be. How could that possibly be either fair or merciful when there are so many who are single, or do not have children for whatever reason? So many who are trying desperately to figure out where they fit in this world, and specifically this church when they are divorced or gay or alone or all the other things that might make one feel like a second class member (which term, by the way, annoys me, because it has such a scent of pity party and cop out about it)? So for now, motherhood and fatherhood are roles. They are not yet part of an identity. But because so many think and believe and teach as if they are -- right now -- there's tons of guilt and confusion and frustration when life does not work out to that ideal that few, if any, actually fit. I am convinced that no woman can be a good mother, and no man a good father, until he or she knows and understands that he or she is FIRST a child of God, with divine gifts and talents and possibilities. And each person needs to also understand his or her place in a ward family, or the family he or she grew up in. There are a million ways to serve and help families, and the basic point of the matter is that our hearts really need to be in the right place.

    I think the church is better than we ever give it credit for, and the brethren are more understanding than we could ever imagine.

    And when the Ensign fails in some way or another, I can't help but think of a story about Elder McConkie and his secretary. She stomped into his office one afternoon nearly in tears, because she had received regular letters from one irritated gentlemen who obviously had nothing better to do than rip apart the Ensign for its imperfections (instead of noticing all the things it does right). She finally realized she could not please this man, and informed Elder McConkie that she would "never read that thing again." As the story goes, Elder McConkie smiled and said, "Oh [whatever her name was], please don't worry about this. A little false doctrine never hurt anybody. It keeps people on their toes."

    I suppose there are occasions where such an attitude is as necessary as anything else. :)


    (sorry this was so long, but in all fairness, you did cause me to spend much of my day thinking about it. :) )

    ReplyDelete
  14. thanks everyone for the post. I'm not sure that I have something particular to say that hasn't already been said above by someone, but I am continuing to think about this

    ReplyDelete