Mom School

This summer I wanted the kids to focus on some things that I wanted them to learn.  School is good and all, but I wanted a little more say for the summer.  So, I came up with "Mom School."  Mom School this summer included swimming lessons, music, drama, dance, school review, and culture.

Our son needed to review elapsed time and work on his spelling and handwriting.  I also had him do a bit of typing and math drill reviews.  He took hip-hop with a friend, swimming, piano, and did a drama camp.

Our daughter needed to work on reading, but also took jazz, swimming, did KinderBach at home, and drama camp.

We kept busy and I was really glad to not have to compete with regular school!

For culture, I thought I'd choose a country a week to study.  I ended up choosing a specific country/week by the type of food we were in the mood for.  We ended up only doing about 1/2 our countries, but it was a good effort.  We covered China, Thailand, England, Sweden, India, and Mexico.  Sometimes I'd make the food, sometimes we'd go out.  I almost purchased the Confessions of a Homeschooler's curriculum, but instead made a really simple worksheet for the kids to complete to learn more about the country.  Then we'd talk about it.  They didn't always do all the worksheet, but it gave us a little focus.

How School Didn't Help Me Prepare for Motherhood

A little while ago I reworked a piece from here for Real Intent, entitled "Is Education for Naught When You Just Stay Home?"  Of course it's not, but I realized after I wrote the piece that school itself really didn't help me prepare for stay-at-home motherhood of young children.

In school we're taught to complete assignments.  At home you leave things undone.  You get half the vacuuming done, half the dishes done, and half the cleaning the bathroom done.  Hopefully, though, you get the changing of the poopy diaper completed.

In school you're supposed to be efficient and fast.  At home with small children, you walk slowly, you talk slowly, you even stop to smell the roses. When our son was three, he started stuttering.  Do you know what the speech therapist told me?  To SLOW DOWN!  I talked too fast, I read stories to our son too fast.  He needed me to slow down so he could catch up and not feel like he had to be so fast, too.

In school we're supposed to strive for perfection; strive for As.  At home, when you have kids help, you're fooling yourself if you're shooting for perfection.  When they make their beds, they're not quite right.  When they do the dishes, sometimes gunk is left on them; when they wash the windows, there are still smudges here and there.  But you know what?  It's okay, they're learning.

Related to the last one, in school you're supposed to do it once and do it right.  At home there's that constant monotony of redoing things again and again and again and again.  The teachers who send kids back to fix their mistakes are the ones who have it right.  That's what happens in mom life.

In school you're taught to do your own work.  At home you work together as a team and learn from each other.  I'm becoming a bigger fan of school group work as that is more how it is at home and even in the workplace.

At school you go by the rules and structure of the school or teacher.  At home you have to be flexible, and any structure you may wish to follow just might fly out the window depending on the day.

In school you get immediate feedback and praise for a job well done.  At home it might take nine years to see the fruits of your labors.  In the short-term, you may not even get any appreciation or recognition for any of the hard work you've done.  In school we get accustomed to knowing how well we're doing; at home you hope and pray you're doing a good job.

So, if I were to design school to help me prepare for motherhood, there would at least be more group work and more re-doing assignments.  I'm not sure if I'd want to slow down the pace of school, or interrupt school studies, or discontinue grades just to make certain points about real life, but there's surely room for improvement in preparing young people for eventual parenthood/life.

***

5/28 Addition:  I want to think more about this, but after sharing this with some friends on Facebook, Jessica reminded me that there are some great things that come out of school such as critical thinking/reading/writing,  understanding other viewpoints, enabling curiosity, learning how to research, assimilating information, doing things you don't want to do, and realizing you can do more than you think you can.  I use all those things now, and I can greatly attribute them to my formal schooling.

I must add that I also see a big benefit of putting kids together of the same ages in school.  They're developmentally similar and teachers can reach them in so many ways -- ways I can't because I'm juggling other children of different ages (however, I'd love to see kids broken up into interests and abilities within their age groups, too).  If I had to homeschool my kids, I'd probably get the basics in, but would miss out on reaching related topics.  I'd also miss certain things because I just didn't think of them!

So, in sum, education -- any kind -- is huge to enhance one's life and make one a better person; school itself may not prepare a person for parenthood and the realities of life, but it can in ways, and there are definitely transferrable skills.  My grandmother used to say, "Don't let school interfere with your education," and I believe it in many ways to be true.

Non-Cognitive Development

Image from This American Life/Theo Takes the Marshmallow Test on YouTube

I just re-listened to part of a This American Life entitled "Back to School."  I actually started it during the week, didn't finish it, left it open on the computer, it disappeared (imagine that), then I found my notes on the desk and had to think and think what they were from.  Finally I figured it out, couldn't find the link to the broadcast on Facebook, but then just Googled it, got it, listened to it, then actually remembered that I had actually listened to it.  Oh, the life of a mother -- in one ear and out the other!  I suppose that's why I write things down:  I just know it's not going to stick for long.

Anyway, "Back to School" was quite fascinating.  It was inspired by a new book called How Children Succeed by Paul Tough.  I wanted to jot down a few of the highlights.

• Do teachers really make a difference?
• What should kids be learning in school?
• Is passing the GED really equivalent to actually earning a high school diploma?  If so, all 8th graders should take the GED -- if they pass, it would sure save a lot of time (32 hours to prep for the GED and over 1000 hours/year of HS) and money (it was kind of a joke).  They wondered if people who passed the GED were really as successful as people who graduated from high school.  They were more successful at life than high school dropouts who did not take & pass the GED, but they were far less successful than HS graduates.  GED-passers were more prone to drop out of anything:  jobs, marriage, military, etc.  So, the GED shows people are just as (book) smart as HS grads, but they're still missing something.  I wonder if college grads are even more successful at life.  I'm assuming yes.  What about college dropouts?
• So should we be teaching non-cognitive skills (character, behavior, personality etc.) in addition to cognitive (book smarts) in school?
• We may not be able to change a person's cognitive ability/IQ, but we can improve their non-cognitive skills at any age.

• People who struggled the most with non-cognitive skills were those who suffered major stressors when they were young, such as extreme violence.
• People with adverse childhood experiences had worse health as an adult, and were 2-4 times more likely to have heart disease, depression, suicidal, hepatitis, and other problems.
• Because as young children they suffered great stress, the stress pathways were ingrained in their brains.  The development of the pre-frontal cortex, where the non-cognitive skills are controlled, did not develop like it should.
• If a person had more than 4 adverse childhood experiences, they were 32 times more likely to have problems in school.

• What can we do to help people who struggle with non-cognitive behavior/skills?  They can be coached/mentored at any age.
• A child born into poverty or a bad neighborhood or whatever can be guarded against delinquency if he/she has at least one adult/person who shows care and concern for him/her.  Good parenting can revers the negative effects of stress/trauma.
• In rat studies, baby rats that had more attention in the first few weeks of life had more secure attachment (were happier, more well adjusted?) than baby rats that didn't.
• 2/3 of children are identified as having a secure attachment to a parent/parents; whereas, 1/3 are not.

I think this reminds me of how important it is to have a loving, caring, nurturing parent, especially in the early years of life.  It also tells me book smarts aren't the only thing that bring us success.  We also need good character and personalities.  

Parental Involvement in Children's Education

I was able to read an article in my McKay Today Magazine called "Parent Involvement:  The Beginning Defines the Future" by Bryan Korth.  I was pleased to see the article and all the ways parents can be involved in their kids' education, both at home and at school.  The ways Korth mentions:

1.  Parents assisting teachers by preparing materials or filing paperwork.
2.  "Classroom parents" who organize classroom events.
3.  Parents who actually instruct in the classroom.
4.  Communication between parent and teacher.
5.  Being engaged in homework.
6.   Parental support to develop strong bonds with the child.
7.  Regulation:  appropriate expectations and structure regarding a child's behavior.
8.  Acknowledgment of the child's independent self, whereby parents avoid intruding, exploiting, or manipulating the child.

Like I said, I was pleased to see the article, but I was also kind of disappointed in the content.  For one thing, I was looking for some new ways to be more involved, but as I read, I pretty much feel like we're doing every single one of those things already.  I suppose the only way we could be more involved is to home-school our kids, and I'm just not going there.  I felt good when I realized I help with homework books for my kindergartner's class; and I felt good that although I'm not really participating in classroom events, I am participating in the PTA (but don't get me started on that one today.  I just added up my hours for the last 3 weeks and I'm looking at 20+; and I still have 2 events next week before I record my monthly hours!!!  I'm good for 5-15 hours/month, but this is getting ridiculous.  I oversee 12 events this year.).  I also felt good that next month I will begin instructing my 3rd grader's class on art for the next 3 months.  I'm no art expert, but no one had signed up for the assignment, and I used to be kind of good at art.

Another thing I was disappointed in was (oh how do I say this without being too offensive) the acknowledgement that most parents don't actually have the time to help out at the school, but if they're involved in other ways with their kids, then that's great.  Now that's fine, but I'm feeling a little burdened here putting in so many hours at/for the school.  I guess I just need some validation that these big school activities (book fair, carnival, reading activities, etc.) are actually worth helping out with, or I kind of just want to stop.  I'm feeling like the work to carry out the activities is in no way balanced with what my kids personally get out of them.  It seems like the activities are great and all, but there seem to be too few of us left/willing to be able to carry them out.  The reason I've done PTA/school activities is that more people want to be in the class with their kids, and fewer want to help the PTA/school, so I thought I'd help where the help was needed most.  Maybe I'm just being too nice by helping out the PTA/school and should be more selfish and get more into my kids' classes.

Anyway, it seems like there was one more thing, but I can't remember it now.  If you've had experience with PTA/school activities, what do you believe is their purpose?  Are the activities really valuable, or does classroom involvement outweigh the school functions?  Are we holding these big activities just to show how awesome we are, or could we do without them and focus more on the classroom?

Women, Education, and Careers

I've recently read a few articles on women, education, and careers. The first article was "Giving Women a Voice Without Sacrificing Faith or Family: The Changes Needed to Create an Egalitarian Society" by Kaylie Clark. The second was What If “Plan A” Doesn’t Work? helping Female students navigate an uncertain life course by Casey Hurley. The Third was The College Rip-off by Rich Lowry.

Let me start with article #2.  Hurley began by comparing the life path of hypothetical LDS twin college students, male and female.  She suggested a more direct path for the male:  

Righteous LDS young men are given clear goals: get an education, serve a mission, get married, work to provide for your family. A young man can safely make a single generalized career plan: prepare to work full-time in a position that will support a family until retirement. Brother may change jobs from time to time, but the general plan will remain intact.

For the female she pointed out a less direct plan:

Sister is likely to perceive her duties as: get as much education as you can; go on a mission if you feel so inspired; get married if a worthy man asks; stay home with your children if you get married and are able to have children; provide for your family if your husband dies, is disabled, or leaves you; provide for yourself if you stay single or somehow lose your husband; help provide for your family if your husband gets laid off or your family encounters other difficult circumstances...and so on.

There are no certainties on the list.

After reading that, I honestly thought, "Oh that is so not fair when you look at it that way!  We women totally get the short end of the deal!"  But, it kind of is the way it is because we're trying to live what we believe is God's Plan for the family.  I have to remember that I had 27 years for myself before having children, the least I can do is dedicate a couple decades to child-rearing.  As I lamented to my husband, he was wise enough to remind me that many young men do sacrifice, too.  Some may give up dreams of becoming an artist to be an accountant so they can possibly better provide for a family.  Some may give up a permanent video game career in their parents' basement to become responsible adults.  So, I don't know if you can say women make all the sacrifices to follow a man, because some men give up dreams, too.

The balance of the article provides some great ideas in helping young women become aware of education/career choices, outside the familiar female education/career choices, that can work while caring for a family.  I thought the idea was brilliant and wished there would have been information like that available to me in the mid-1990s. 

For example, my experience as the faculty adviser of the pre-law society indicates few of our female students consider law as a possible field of study. . . .  Law can be a great career choice for women. . . . Law is one of a number of career paths that offers the kind of flexibility and options most of our female students are probably looking for. But have we shown them where to find these options?

I began to wonder, if I had to do it again, what would I do differently?  I have a teaching certificate, and am thankful for that, but I chose education because I believed it was the best choice in case my future husband were unemployed, underemployed, if we separated, or if he died.  I also liked the my education major because it wasn't heavy on the math and science, and since I was on scholarship, my chances of keeping it were better if I took easier classes (yes, I just admitted that!).  If I knew I was to never marry, I'm pretty sure I would not have chosen education, but I don't know what I would have done.  Law, no.  Computer Science, no.  International Studies, maybe.  Epidemiology, maybe.  If I had to do it again now, under my current circumstances, I'd probably fall immediately in to the professional secretary category, just because of past experience.  Philanthropy and history would be fun, but there's not much money in that.

So, I loved the concept presented and hope that young women are given more ideas on careers that are flexible, especially when motherhood, particularly single-motherhood, is involved.

The first article by Clark addressed the issue of how to make the workplace more friendly toward parents.  After thinking about myself in a position of having to go to work to support our family, I thought how crucial a more family-friendly work place is.

She suggested a few ideas, most I liked, a couple I didn't.

• Breastfeeding/pumping rooms.
• Affirmative action - can't say I'm a big fan.  I'm all for taking the best person for a position whether it be a male or a female (or whatever race, etc.).  If both candidates are equally qualified, and if you don't have many women at a company already, take the female so you can get that female perspective, if you want it.  If you just don't get qualified women for positions of influence, maybe it's time to create a specific women's issues position where the women's voice can be heard -- even if the woman doesn't have as many degrees, or as much experience as the men on the board.  (Sounds a little like the Relief Society:  The LDS Church is a predominantly male-led organization in the highest outward rankings, but there are some key positions where women serve, and they share the female perspective.)
• Results-Only Work Environment (not based on hours worked, just results)
• Proportional benefits and equal per hour pay to part-time workers
• Paid maternity/parental leave - can't say I'm a big fan of this either, mainly because who's going to pay for it?  The company?  The government/taxpayers?  I do like sick-leave plans that can be used for other members of a person's family (i.e. husband stay home when wife has a baby).

Clark also suggested a paradigm shift in money, family values, and masculinity, which I appreciated:  "Two values specifically must be examined, the first being the value our society places on money and the value we place as a society on the centrality of the family."  Sometimes I wonder, though, if we've gone too far away from family values?  Can we re-claim that value?  Many people don't even want to get married anymore.  Additionally, regarding masculinity and homemaking she quoted "Elder Dallin H. Oaks said 'homemaking is not just baking bread or cleaning a house.  Homemaking is to make the environment necessary to nurture our children toward eternal life, which is our responsibility as parents.  And that homemaking is as much for fathers as it is for mothers.'"

The main point, though, of Clark's article was to help women not feel bad about pursuing their passions.  She admires women who's passion it is to be a mother (an example), but she wants to open the doors for women who have other dreams, too.  In order to do this, in addition to the above ideas, she leans toward making men's and women's roles more the same.  This is where I was a bit less favorable of the article.  This could possibly be because we come from different backgrounds.  She said her "entire life plan was to be a stay-at-home-mom" until she found a major she enjoyed; whereas,  I saw myself also as a stay-at-home-mom, well someday, but wasn't super excited about it; it sounded hard. I felt that staying home (if I could) was what I should be doing and would be best for my children (although, maybe that lack of excitement was because I wouldn't let myself get too excited about something that I'd soon have to give up?  I'll have to think about that some more.  Maybe Clark and I aren't so different after all!).  I feel now that my primary purpose is to raise my children (with my husband), and in the down-times I'll pursue my dreams; I just won't be able to do full-force.  To make it easier for the time being, I've tried to make mothering my passion.

I guess I just have a case of cognitive dissonance when I understand the doctrine of the family, yet also understand the need to fulfill one's passions, and see reasons to do so, and also see women who have made outstanding contributions to society outside of their homes. It just feels weird for me to say that there are times when able-bodied married women should not have children -- probably because that is not "my plan" (and isn't it a tendency to push one's own plan on others?)  For me, right now, the default for child bearing is on (yet I'm not the type to go for 12 children, and I think Heavenly Father understands why and is okay with that).  This all is why we have personal revelation and why we cannot judge others.

To back up the idea of women pursuing their aspirations, she shared:

“The Family: a Proclamation to the World” is the central doctrinal document on the family for the LDS church, and it states that “the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children” (The First Presidency, Para. 1). It states that “husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children” (The First Presidency, Para. 6).It is clear from this paragraph that an equally shared duty of both the man and the woman is the welfare and proper upbringing of their children.

...Elder M. Russell Ballard illustrated this compatibility when he said, ““Is a woman’s value dependent exclusively upon her role as a wife and mother?  The answer is simple and obvious: No . . . Every righteous man and woman has a significant role to play in the onward march of the kingdom of God” (Ballard, 2001). According to Elder Ballard, women have value outside of and work to do in addition to bearing children. President Gordon B. Hinckley himself said “The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it… women today are afforded the same opportunity to study for science, for the professions, and for every other facet of human knowledge. . . You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part.”

I like the quotes, they're empowering. However, Clark skipped the part in "The Family" that states:  "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."  Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me that encourages, when possible, mothers primarily to nurture, and fathers to primarily protect and provide.  I don't know why we are encouraged to have these divided roles.  Perhaps it's because those who wrote the document are patriarchal and old fashioned.  Perhaps there is actually something inherent in the male makeup and the female makeup that makes one more suited for his or her designated role?  Could women actually be more suited for childcare?  Could it be that their brains really are more wired for multitasking, something that is required all the time while raising children?  We definitely know there is a physical connection between mothers, fetuses, lactation, and infancy.  There are just some nurturing things a father is physically unable to do.  Could men be encouraged to protect and provide because they are larger and because they possibly tend to think more compartmentally, which can help them stay better focused in their work?  I don't mean to sound belligerent, but we just don't know why we are encouraged to have these specific roles; perhaps someday we will completely find out.  I believe that if I do my best to fulfill my role, though, that my life will be happier and simpler than it might be otherwise.


Another part Clark left out of her article from "The Family" that she actually could use to back up her idea of equality was, "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.  Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."  This statement tells me that it is okay adjust for "other circumstances" in addition to "disability" and "death."  It also clearly states (a part we tend to breeze over) that spouses are "obligated to help one another as equal partners."  This tells me that we help each other in our separate roles that we've been asked to fulfill; there is overlap.  We are a family team playing different positions.  

In regards to nurturing, Clark cites one study:  "men can nurture just as well as women, psychological studies testing the assumption that women are better nurturers yields ambiguous findings due to cultural influences, so the argument that women are naturally better equipped for the work in the home is weak with little scientific backing."  Maybe so, but there are other findings that at least make me ask more questions.

So I like Clark's general ideas of changing societal attitudes toward family, and I like the suggestions for modifying the work-place, but I felt there was quite the elimination of our God-given roles and duties.  When I was engaged and first married, I was all for equally sharing all the household duties (how degrading that I would have to do them when my husband was completely capable of helping out; I was not his slave), but as time went on, and especially once we had children, because my husband went away to work, it just made sense for me to do the traditional female jobs.  I've said for some time now that "if it goes against the family, the LDS Church will not support it."  Because Clark's ideas do support the family, I suppose they could work, but I wonder if the risk would be too much overlap and headbutting between husband and wife as they try and be too much the same?  Maybe it's not about reasoning, though.


At the end of Clark's article she shares what she would like to do with her passions:  "I can build schools for little girls and little boys, where I can help the underprivileged find their voice, where I can work with governments and businesses to bring these same opportunities to others. And I will do this with a man who shares my vision. . . ."  I liked that; I can relate to that.  I minored in International Development in college.  I had a crush on a guy who'd traveled the world helping people.  I fantasized about marrying him, founding some NGO, and traveling the globe.  I felt, and still believe, this is something that can be done with your own family at your side.  

Well, so much for that third article, I'm not making this post any longer.

Spiritual Education and Knowledge

I read Motherhood and Education by Rachell and just loved what she said regarding Julie Beck's thoughts on knowledge and education:

. . .“Mothers who know create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth in their homes. . . . Nurturing mothers are knowledgeable, but all the education women attain will avail them nothing if they do not have the skill to make a home that creates a climate for spiritual growth” (italics added). Here, Sister Beck states that nurturing mothers are knowledgeable, but recognizes that unless women know how to create a climate in their home where their eternal posterity can grow both temporally and spiritually, any amount of education is futile. I would submit that as Latter-day Saint women, we should keep this in mind. Our education is useless if we do not know how to invite and maintain the Spirit in our homes. The purpose of our education, as I interpret it from this statement from Sister Beck, is secondary to spiritual knowledge and application. Therefore, the aim of our education should be to aid us in creating an atmosphere in our homes and families where the Spirit can dwell and teach our families. Consequently, I would suggest that if our education, or any other pursuit (spending inordinate amounts of time reading, or cleaning, or cooking, or blogging, or whatever) is taking away from our ability to create homes where the Spirit prevails, then we have wasted our time seeking whatever education we have obtained.

Why Education Is Important Even When You Stay Home

I was talking to a college-aged young woman in our neighborhood recently about school.  She likes college; she's busy; she's stressed out; she finds it strange coming home for holidays and having to report to her parents her schedule.  I asked her what her major is.  She said she wants to be a pharmacist, but the chemistry is killing her.  This is a bright young lady.  I have no doubt she can be a pharmacist.

But, I wonder, doesn't she want to get married and have a family?  She, too, has grown up believing that "the family is ordained of God.   Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan" and "that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. . . .  By divine design, . . . mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."  I contemplate, wouldn't it make it kind of hard to be a mother and a pharmacist someday?

Why do we do this to our girls?  Why do we ask them what they want to be career-wise when they grow up, when really we (or some of us) hope they will simply be able to stay home and be a fulfilled wife and a mother?  Turning to ourselves, why did many of us set off on this fake career journey knowing that deep down we just wanted to find our dream guy and eventually raise a family?  Do we need to spend all that time and money on education if we're going to "just" stay home?

Well, I don't know.

But I do know there is inherent goodness in education. From a scriptural or religious standpoint, in Doctrine and Covenants sections 88 and 109, we are encouraged to seek out of the "best books words of wisdom" and to "seek learning even by study and . . . by faith." We know that whatever intelligence we gain in this life will be an advantage to us in the next (D&C 130: 18-19).  We also know that "the glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (D&C 93:36).
 
I also know that if something happens to my husband, I need a backup plan (maybe it's a new husband, maybe it's a job).  I also have a hunch that someday I'm going to be learning chemistry and physics and calculus and all sorts of other hard things anyway, so I may as well get a head start on them in this life.

Most importantly, for my circumstances, doesn't education also also make me a better, well-rounded, enlightened person with a better capacity to serve my family and community?   Education gives us more to think and talk about -- more than pop culture or gossip.  It helps us feel balanced.

I had a discussion the other night with my husband on how college has helped me become a better person and mother.  I actually had a really difficult time thinking of examples at first, but once I started looking at specific cases, I can see how I have used my education:

• Stress Management:  Relaxation, and deep breathing techniques -- ways to stay sane!
• First Aid:  Taking care of family members and teaching Cub Scouts
• Child Development:  Let's just say I wish I would have paid better attention in this class.  I regrettably admit that I felt too proud to be there.
• Social Hygiene:  That was BYU's name for Human Sexuality.  It came very much in handy when I got married, but was totally embarrassing to me while I attended (although the teacher was very tactful).
• Utah History:  Fun to teach my kids and volunteer with them at This is the Place Heritage Park
• Geography, Geology, Environmental Biology:  Fun with kids and Cub Scouts
• Education/Teaching:  That's a no-brainer
• Behavior Change:  Helpful for myself with weight loss as well as family situations
• English/Writing:  Helps me so I don't look quite such a dork on-line and in other written situations.  Helpful for proofing my husbands' schoolwork and my father's book.
• Leadership Opportunities:  In college I had a couple opportunities to attend leadership workshops.  These  still prove useful in church and community service.
• Consumer Health:  Helpful in discerning unscrupulous health fads
• Statistics: Taught me that you can interpret numbers any way you like, so be wary of what you hear
• International Development:  Helps me remember that most of the people around the world don't live like we do.  I can teach my children not to feel so entitled.  I hope to take them on some humanitarian "vacations" when they are older.
• Religion Classes:  At LDS Church schools you are required to take religion classes 7 of your 8 semesters.  Not only did this help my personal faith and knowledge grow, but it helps me in public teaching situations.  When I was asked to teach Sunday School, you can bet my New Testament class came in handy!
• Computer Classes: I'm almost young enough to be a digital native, but I still need some help!

There are still many topics that I would like to learn more about, that either I didn't take in college, or now I realize the benefit:

• Sewing and Pattern Design:  What a fun hobby to keep me busy!
• Cooking:  Why doesn't my caramel turn out like I want it?  Why won't my whole wheat bread get a lighter texture?
• Horticulture:  What is wrong with my garden, my grass, etc.?
• Business/Economics:  Even just a basic class would have been helpful here.  Darn stock market.

Some of the topics I mention are "general" classes, which seem very beneficial in daily life.  What about serious math and science majors, though?  Is that education for naught when you end up staying home to raise a family? I'm not sure since I did major in Health Education, which now clearly has helped me in my role as a wife and mother.  My sister-in-law, Emily, is working on a PhD in Chemistry.  I'd like to ask her how/if studying zucchini root can help her as a wife and soon-to-be mother.  Maybe the actual knowledge isn't that practical, but the learning surrounding it is?  I know she has helped my brother with his math!

What about all that time spent in college?  I ask, is it really that much time?  You can earn a bachelor's degree an approximately 4 years.  That doesn't sound like such a huge amount of time when you can be raising children from anywhere between 18 and 30 or more years.  I think the trick is if marriage and family do present itself during those 4 years, take it if it's right, and feel good about it.  After all, isn't our first priority our families?  You can still keep learning, too, on your own!  You can even go back later if you want.  You can even go while you raise your family, but just be careful not to over-do it.  Balance -- it's good for your health.

I talked to someone recently about her education. She said once her kids are older, she wants to go back to school.  What she wants to do with herself now is totally different than what she studied when she was younger.  She knows more about the world and has different ideas on what she wants to do with herself.

Speaking of going back to school and careers, I recently listened to this Conversation with historian, Susan Easton Black.  Her story is fascinating.  She became a single mother of three, and with the babysitting help of another mother who could no longer have children, Black was able to return to college and become a professor.  She made the best of her situation and has made wonderful contributions to society.

Now I know there are some who are anti-college for various reasons, and that is fine.  There is plenty you can learn on your own, especially in this day of access to so much information.  College can just give you the opportunity to focus and teaches you what you didn't even know you should know (you don't know what you don't know).  Wherever you get your education, though, you should.

Back to the topic of our girls, maybe so they won't feel like they're "wasting their education" when they do settle down to have a family, we should not ask them in a career-minded way what they want to be when they grow up, but ask them what they want to study.  Maybe that way they'll feel they're taking their education with them, rather than leaving it behind with the career they didn't quite have.  Perhaps we can also emphasize that the first priority is to be a wife and a mother; self pursuits, including education and career, and even hobbies, are secondary.

The Joy of Womanhood Quotables

Femininity

. . .Femininity "is the divine adornment of humanity. It finds expression in your … capacity to love, your spirituality, delicacy, radiance, sensitivity, creativity, charm, graciousness, gentleness, dignity, and quiet strength. It is manifest differently in each girl or woman, but each … possesses it. Femininity is part of your inner beauty."

Modesty

You can recognize women who are grateful to be a daughter of God by their outward appearance. These women understand their stewardship over their bodies and treat them with dignity. They care for their bodies as they would a holy temple, for they understand the Lord’s teaching: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16). Women who love God would never abuse or deface a temple with graffiti. Nor would they throw open the doors of that holy, dedicated edifice and invite the world to look on. How even more sacred is the body, for it was not made by man. It was formed by God. We are the stewards, the keepers of the cleanliness and purity with which it came from heaven. “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:17).

Grateful daughters of God guard their bodies carefully, for they know they are the wellspring of life and they reverence life. They don’t uncover their bodies to find favor with the world. They walk in modesty to be in favor with their Father in Heaven. For they know He loves them dearly. 

Education and Homemaking

Grateful daughters of God learn truths from their mothers and grandmothers and aunts. They teach their daughters the joyful art of creating a home. They seek fine educations for their children and have a thirst for knowledge themselves. They help their children develop skills that they can use in serving others. They know that the way they have chosen is not the easy way, but they know it is absolutely worth their finest efforts. 

“'When the real history of mankind is fully disclosed, will it feature the echoes of gunfire or the shaping sound of lullabies? The great armistices made by military men or the peacemaking of women in homes and in neighborhoods? Will what happened in cradles and kitchens prove to be more controlling than what happened in congresses?'”

My Favorite

The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.

 --Margaret D. Nadauld in The Joy of Womanhood

Teaching the Doctrine of the Family

I read "Teaching the Doctrine of the Family" by Julie Beck last night.  Wow.  She hit the nail right on the head.  Wow again.

She started off the talk mentioning how she'd asked young people why their education is so important.  She got many replies.  Anything from it's "the key to success" to a way "to meet other great . . . youth."  The answer that was strongly lacking was that of, "So I will someday be a better family leader."  She goes on:

Family is rarely on their minds.  Their responses are generally about self, and of course we know this is the time of life they're in.  They're living in a very self-interested time of life, but they aren't thinking about family.

Julie Beck points out that the youth are surrounded by "evidence. . . that the family is not important."  "They don't see forming families as a faith-based work."  She says "They are being desensitized about the need to form families." The youth are bombarded with messages of "You are the one who will get yourself ahead.  It's because of your skills and intelligence that you will be successful."  It's not about God and family, it's about you.  We need to make sure they know it really is about God and family.

This all reminds me of when I was considering going to graduate school.  I was counseled in filling out my applications:  "Don't write how you think this program will help you be a better mother (or father) because that won't help you get in."  But wasn't that really what my end goal should have been --  my future family?  I wasn't doing this to further my career (what career? I really didn't want one anyway -- I didn't want to get set on one that I'd have to eventually give up).

Family.  The core of LDS theology (summarizing Julie Beck):  If we believe that the glory of God is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39), meaning being connected eternally as families through the priesthood ordinances found in temples of Christ's restored church, then family has to be our main focus so we can fulfill the glory of God and not "utterly waste" the creation of the earth (D&C 2: 1-3).

Julie Beck explains further:

The Creation of the earth was the creation of an earth where a family could live.  It was a creation of a man and a woman who were the two essential halves of a family.  It was not about a creation of a man and a woman who happened to have a family.  It was intentional all along that Adam and Eve form an eternal family. . . .  That was the plan of happiness.

The Fall provided a way for the family to grow. . . in numbers and grow in experience. . . . The Atonement allows for the family to be sealed together eternally. . . .  The plan of happiness and the plan of salvation was a plan created for families.  I don't think very many of the rising generation understand that the main pillars of our theology are centered in the family.

You know how the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" had it's little fad several years ago?  I mean it's a good thing to ask yourself, but it did have a popular time there.  Similarly, over the last year or so when trying to answer a question, I've also considered, "What does this do to the family?" or "How does this affect the family." 

By applying that question, you can see why the LDS Church answers the way it does concerning gay marriage, immigration, or other topics.  If the issue doesn't promote families, you can bet the LDS Church will not be in favor of it.

Anyway, awesome article.  Thanks for sending it along, Bridget!

Advantages of Home-Schooling

Just to be sure you know where I am coming from, I really love public education.  I truly feel that it can do a better job at educating my kids than I can.  I never wanted to home-school my kids because teaching different kids different things all at the same time just stresses me out.  However, I always dreamed of coming up with really cool activities for my kids before the school years as well as for the summer.  I thought I'd be something like No Time for Flashcards.

Has it happened?  No, not nearly like I'd hoped, but I am getting better at it. 

During the summers, I volunteer with my kids at This Is the Place Heritage Park in Salt Lake City.  Many of the volunteer families there are home-schooled families.  When I first learned this, my (terribly rude and stereotypical) reaction was, will they be weird like the home-schooled kids I'd heard about growing up?  No.  They were wonderful!  I'd never met such confident and responsible teenagers!  Since then, I've met other home-schooled kids that I find amazing!

One time on LAF/Beautiful Womanhood, a link was posted to an article on the Duggar family. You know, the ones with the 19/20 kids.  (I have to be honest here, I used to think people with lots of kids were crazy.  I think I picked that attitude up when I was young and started hearing people make rude birth control comments toward others with large families.  After becoming a mother, though, I have a gained a HUGE amount of respect for families who do have lots of children.  I think our Heavenly Father wants to give us as many children as we are willing to take; so, more power to you if you have a quiverfull!)

Anyway, the article said,

While, admittedly, I admire the Duggars for much of what they do, I didn’t expect what I saw in these 3 girls.  The world has yet to beat them into submission.  They don’t watch the Disney Channel, so they’ve yet to learn that adults are buffoons and parents are embarrassing.  They don’t listen to the local rock station, so they’ve yet do discover life is supposed to be one promiscuous event followed by another.  They don’t attend public school, so they’ve yet to learn teenage girls are required to be filled with angst and riddled with insecurities.

As we spoke to the 3 of them, one word kept jumping out at me:  Freedom.  These girls were experiencing freedom teenagers rarely taste.  Completely free to be themselves.  The exact opposite of the words so often used by media folk to describe the 19 kids.

I realized that if these types of families can raise these children to be so exceptional, they must be doing something right.  I don't think I need to necessarily home-school my kids to teach these things, I just need to stress these attitudes and qualities in other ways.

On a side-note, I've learned, the reason we all thought home-schooled kids were weird growing up was because they were more mature, confident, and responsible.  They could talk to adults.  We were the dorky ones following the fads.

Are the schools doing too much?

I had a recent e-mail conversation with a friend.  We both felt that school was taking over our lives.  How is there any time to do anything as a family, any lessons, any sports, any church activities when the kids are in school all day, then they have homework in the evenings?  When do they have time to play?  I don't know how people have time to put their kids in extracurricular activities.

Then I start to think about it and get slightly lazy.  I realize my child gets extracurricular activities at school:  art, sports, music, recess, lunch, socializing, fieldtrips.  I don't have to provide it for him.  I don't have to pay extra for it, either -- I've already paid for it in my taxes. 

As for field-trips, I do get slightly annoyed with them.  My son has already gone to a play and will be going to the planetarium shortly.  I'd like to take him to the planetarium myself, but when would we go?  Why would I take him if he's just gone?  I'd also have to pay for it.

What an irony!  Is the school system replacing me as a parent?  Shouldn't I be doing these things?

I realize I can.  It's called volunteering.  When I am in the classroom, I can feel a part of my child's academic and social education!

(OK, this post is a little satirical, and there are additional worthwhile extra-curricular activities and things the schools can't/don't do, but I think I'll feel better about my kids' education when I am as involved as I can be.  You can bet I will work harder to be in the classroom/at the school even more now!  It's a lot easier than home-schooling them!)