The Proclamation

 You guys. I'm starting to have more time now that my youngest is in kindergarten and my oldest is on a mission in California. (Well I would have more time, but I started painting the interior trim when my girls got Covid in August, and I'm still working on it! Once that is done, I should have a whole 1 hour and 45 minutes some days when my youngest is in kindergarten.) Maybe I'll write more. Not that anyone reads blogs anymore, haha. But, the last while I've been listening to podcasts, lots of them. Sadly, I haven't written down what I've learned like I used to when I read stuff, so it will be difficult to go back and find what I learned. However, I wanted to jot down one really great podcast my husband recommended after he listened to it. I'd listened to a lot of the Follow Him podcasts with John Bytheway and Hank Smith, but I'd missed the on on The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Dec 10-11, parts 1-2, episode 51 with Dr. Jenet Erickson. She touched on gender, the importance of fathers, preside, the sexual revolution, and so much more. It was so good, and worth taking notes on, even though I didn't!

The disintegrating family and a book with ideas to combat it

Here are a couple things I saw today on the disintegrating family.

First off, did you see the WSJ's "America's Baby Bust" from the 2nd?  It reminded me a bit of Demographic Winter and population decline and the potential effects on society.

America's fertility rate began falling almost as soon as the nation was founded. In 1800, the average white American woman had seven children. (The first reliable data on black fertility begin in the 1850s.) Since then, our fertility rate has floated consistently downward, with only one major moment of increase—the baby boom. In 1940, America's fertility rate was already skirting the replacement level, but after the war it jumped and remained elevated for a generation. Then, beginning in 1970, it began to sink like a stone.

There's a constellation of reasons for this decline: Middle-class wages began a long period of stagnation. College became a universal experience for most Americans, which not only pushed people into marrying later but made having children more expensive. Women began attending college in equal (and then greater) numbers than men. More important, women began branching out into careers beyond teaching and nursing. And the combination of the birth-control pill and the rise of cohabitation broke the iron triangle linking sex, marriage and childbearing.

. . .Conservatives like to think that if we could just provide the right tax incentives for childbearing, then Americans might go back to having children the way they did 40 years ago. Liberals like to think that if we would just be more like France—offer state-run day care and other programs so women wouldn't have to choose between working and motherhood—it would solve the problem. But the evidence suggests that neither path offers more than marginal gains.

As I read, I, too, wondered what could make people want to have more children.  My initial thought was that we're too far gone for that.  It's so easy not to have children; we're too selfish; we don't even get married anymore!  (So why would we have children??)  Our world is generally not even family-friendly.  We worship the individual.

If we're going to reverse this decline [in population growth], we'll need to reintroduce into American culture the notion that human flourishing ranges wider and deeper than calculations of mere happiness.

I've been thinking so much about happiness lately and have been wanting to write a post on it.  I'm even trying to have the mindset that life is NOT about happiness, but is about WORK.  I think I'm actually more content when I set my expectation lower regarding personal satisfaction/happiness.

I also found this one interesting, too:

Higher education dampens fertility in all sorts of ways. It delays marriage, incurs debt, increases the opportunity costs of childbearing and significantly increases the expense of raising a child. If you doubt that the economics of the university system are broken, consider this: Since 1960, the real cost of goods in nearly every other sector of American life has dropped. Meanwhile, the real cost of college has increased by more than 1,000%.
If college were another industry, everyone would be campaigning for reform.

OUCH!

I also read today, the intro to Fearless Parenting about actually raising our kids to become mature, responsible adults.  Maybe I can read the book someday!

It’s not that as parents we don’t try. We hover over our kids twenty four hours a
day, we protect our kids from every imaginable harm, we cry with our kids when
they’re hurting, we provide our kids with the best of everything, we run interference
for our kids when they’re in trouble, we do science fair projects for our kids
when they go to bed and we throw ticker-tape parades for them when they graduate
from second grade. We’re doing everything for our kids except the one key
thing we should have been doing all along: prepare them for adulthood.

. . .Instead of teaching them how to struggle, we eliminate struggle from their
lives. Instead of teaching them how to persevere, we tell them not to try so hard.
Instead of teaching them to do without, we teach them all they have to do is ask.
Instead of teaching them to be adventurous we make them risk adverse. Instead
of teaching them how to succeed, we teach them to be happy because we’ve succeeded.

. . .We can teach them to value honor and integrity over “cool” and “sexy.”  

With the way things our with our society, our government, our economy, sometimes I wish we could just go colonize a new country and start over, only there's no where to go.  I wonder what we're in for as no one can seem to come up with any good plan to fix "things," and then even if they do come up with a plan, no one can agree on it.

Purpose in Parenting

I saw three things today that reminded me of the purpose of a parent.

1.  I loved this video that's been floating around for the last few days that emphasizes a father's role in his family.  It reminded me of the movie, Courageous.  What I want to see now is a similar video on motherhood to get me all weepy and happy.


2.

3.  My friend wrote a Facebook status about chopping walnuts.  I'd love to just copy it in here, but I don't have her permission, so I'll just summarize.  As she chopped, she stressed over all she had to do and what she might be doing wrong.  Finally, she took a breath and decided just to focus on what she was doing.  She noticed one walnut always jumping out of the way of her knife and "just going with the flow."  As she slowed down, she remembered she actually enjoyed cooking!  She noticed other little things around the house and then wondered how often she misses out on special times because she's worrying about other things.  She wondered about missing connections with her kids and other "blissful moments."  She realized she needs to be more like that walnut and "go with the flow" and try not "to fix and force things," but to "be still" and "be quiet" so she can "find the joy and contentment [she] seek[s] in places [she'd] never expect."  Loved it.

A Parent's Guide

A while back, we finished reading A Parent's Guide, the LDS Church's 1985 guidebook on how to talk to your kids about the body and sex.  Although it was so old, I'd never heard about it until maybe year ago.  At first I figured it would be a nice, well-balanced approach to human development, then after hearing so much negativity online toward so many things that the LDS Church does, I worried that it might have some non-PC stuff in it, but when I read it, I was pleasantly surprised and learned some good things.  (See, don't trust what you read online. Don't even trust me.  Go find out for yourself.)

I thought I'd jot down a few quotes I liked (I admit, it ends up being waaaay more than a few).

Intimacy does not occur in a vacuum, isolated from other human relationships, from values, or from our perceptions of ourselves and others. It is only one part—although a very important part—of our relationships with others (5).

Amen to that.  I think we're trained in our culture to think that intimacy/sex is this focal point of our lives, but it's just a part of a whole picture.

***

If we are to emulate the love of Christ, we must have the same objective: “I do what I do because I love you, not because I have any selfish gain in mind or any anticipation that credit shall come to me.

This one reminded me of a story my husband told me from when he was in an institute class.  In some dating discussion, another student commented that if he took a girl on a date and bought her dinner, he expected something in return at the end of the date, namely, a kiss.  Really?  Entitlement, hmmm.  What if she didn't like him?  Why is this all about him and his desires?  Isn't dating about getting to know another person?

***

While many of the responsibilities of men and women are the same, the Lord has assigned to his sons the responsibilities of holding the priesthood, of providing for their families, and of presiding in righteousness over them. The Lord has assigned to his daughters the responsibilities of helping to create earthly bodies for his spirit children, of nurturing and caring for those children, and of sustaining and counseling with her husband (8).

The predecessor to The Family: A Proclamation to the World?

***

Help your young children understand that being a man or a woman is part of a pattern of life established and approved by their eternal Creator. You teach your children to be proud of being a boy or a girl primarily by being secure and happy yourself with your masculinity or femininity and by demonstrating love for your spouse. As a child interacts with parents who are secure in these ways, he learns that men and women have a natural and complementary affection for each other and that each parent contributes in unique ways to his or her comfort and security. The child learns that both masculinity and femininity have value and develops a sense of happiness and security in being a boy or a girl.

The following ideas may help you understand the weighty assignments the Lord has given to his sons. He has given them the priesthood, which is his power given to men to act in his name. But this power is not given to men merely to give them authority. On the contrary, the Lord makes clear that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” (D&C 121:41). The purpose of having the priesthood in the home is to bring the powers of heaven into the lives of the family members. Through his priesthood, the father is able to receive revelation, inspiration, and understanding in behalf of his family. He can perform sacred ordinances for his family and bless them in many ways he could not if he did not hold the priesthood. He has been given this power so that he can bless his family (8).

It goes on to say that a woman's greatest assignment is to give "mortal tabernacles to the spirit children of God," which complements, as quoted above, men's responsibility to "bring the powers of heaven into the lives of the family members." This reminds me of and fits well with Kels's post recently.

***

A mother, when without a husband, presides. In the absence of a father, she is the head of the family. She must make every effort to magnify her role as mother and head of the home and fulfill her responsibility to teach her children (11).

I've known some women who have lost husbands who were unsure what their leadership role was if there wasn't a father/priesthood holder in the home.  One wondered if she should allow her teenage-priesthood-holding son to lead the family.  That didn't make sense to me, so I was glad to see right there, that no, she's the mom, she's the head of the family.

***

“As important as our many programs and organizational efforts are, these should not supplant the home but support the home” (address delivered at Regional Representatives’ seminar, 1 Oct. 1970) (15).

I've heard a lot of argument on whether or not YM/YW activities are really mandatory.  I know I was strongly urged to go as a youth, and I admit, I did pass (unrighteous) judgment on others who were not there.  But, bam, here you have it, these activities should "support the home."  So if you have a family event that is more important, then, it's more important.

***

Teach them that their gender influences their goals and that, depending upon their gender, their goals are to become effective fathers or mothers. . . .

In homes where the mother feels good about her role as a family builder, she will make the child feel well accepted. The mother and child are constant companions [birth to 3 years]. Mother is a coach and tutor, involved in the numberless trials, errors, and successes of this developmental period. The father, on the other hand, comes home from his employment and tends to interrupt the routine. Often he interrupts with play, sometimes with duties, and on occasion with discipline. . . . .

“Keep the mother of your home at the ‘cross roads’ of the home. There is a great danger today of homes breaking down because of allurements to entice mothers to neglect their being at home as the family are coming or going from the home. Now I recognize the necessity of some mothers being required to earn sustenance for their family. I am recognizing that, but [we all] should take care lest [we] fail to lend all aid possible to permit the mother of small children to be with them, if possible, in planning the nature of work or the schedule of time” (“Woman’s Glorious Purpose,” Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1968, pp. 12–13) (20).

I know that those paragraphs could potentially offend some, but nevertheless, I'm still trying to do them for the most part.  I think my parents very much lived this -- even down to when dad comes home, he may interrupt with discipline.  My mom did what she could, but my dad was definitely more of the discipliner.  In our home, I think it's pretty even.

***

Teach your children to accept and understand that basic differences between men and women are complementary in nature. To understand their role identity, children need to understand that each gender completes the purpose of the other’s creation (23).

Love it.  What a great starting point in teaching our body differences.

***

Among the traits Christ revealed as proper for men and women alike are faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, kindness, godliness, humility, diligence, and love. These virtues transcend gender. They are Christlike attributes to which both sexes should aspire. (See D&C 4.)

Spiritual gifts, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 46, are not restricted to one gender either. Included are gifts of knowledge, belief, administration, organization, healing, and discernment. Some females are gifted organizers, some are not. Some males are gifted teachers, some are not. There are all manner of character traits for boys and girls, men and women, to develop if they are to become righteous in all they do, in both their intent and performance (25).

I love that the booklet points out these traits and gifts that apply to both men and women.  So often we label one sex one way and the other, another.  I need this reminder.  I fall into the stereotyping, too.

***

You should provide opportunities for your children to develop talents in various directions unhindered by improper stereotypes. But you should respect the divinely mandated roles special to the respective sexes. . . .

Girls ought to be taught the arts and sciences of housekeeping, domestic finances, sewing, and cooking. Boys need to learn home repair, career preparation, and the protection of women. Both girls and boys should know how to take care of themselves and how to help each other. By example and by discussion, both sexes need to learn about being male or female, which, in summary, means becoming husbands and fathers or wives and mothers, here or hereafter.

There are, of course, realities to face also. Boys must learn basic domestic skills, and girls must be able to earn a living if necessary. In this imperfect world there are the widowed and divorced and those without the opportunity to marry. Their lives need to be as secure and complete as anyone else’s. But for all of the children of God, this life is primarily a probationary existence designed to prepare them for the eternal roles of husband and father, wife and mother. . . .

Sometimes we focus on how boys and girls should be taught differently, but I deliberately emphasized the things that we're taught to teach both sexes.  I need to learn from this one.  I admit that sometimes I've let my son slide in his table-setting duties because he's a boy; but, I'm more persistent in getting my daughter to set the table.  I've felt guilty about that (my mother would have never allowed for such behavior), so I've kind of stopped pushing anyone to set the table.  I just set the dishes on the table and they eventually get distributed.

Parents, by aspiring too much outside the home or through too much self-focused achievement, risk teaching their children that the roles of father and mother are not very desirable-desirable—or less so than the attainment of material goods, the honors of men, or even educational diplomas. . . . (26)  

I absolutely loved that last one.  I have the tendency to long for that grass that's greener on the other side, but I don't want to give my kids the wrong impression, either.

Mothers work along with daughters to bake bread, sew, and plan family menus and budgets. Mothers perform compassionate services with their daughters as companions. And mothers and daughters engage in various mutually enjoyable activities. They sing, play musical instruments, compose music, write poems, and develop artistic talents in all their varieties with their daughters.

Fathers work with sons in repairing things around the house, maintaining the yard or car, and planning the budget. Fathers invite sons to help them perform service and let them observe priesthood blessings. And fathers hike or play ball or engage in other mutually satisfying activities with their sons.

Of course, mothers also teach sons and fathers teach their daughters. If a girl is intrigued with a saw and hammer, the father should help her become proficient. If a boy enjoys cooking, the mother should teach him to be a good cook. Parents should organize all these experiences around the child’s future role as either a mother or a father and should help their children develop their gifts to the highest degree, whatever those gifts may be (29).

***

The future ability to adhere to eternal roles depends on how well the child learns to be Christlike with others. A child should learn to be courteous to all people, affectionate with many, and intimate with a special few, all the while being true and reliable. Future social and emotional security depends on how clearly the child learns a gender role. True role definitions teach the girl that she is a daughter of God, working toward the roles of wife and mother here or hereafter. The boy learns that he is a son of God, working toward the roles of husband and father here or hereafter. These gender-based roles provide the perspective for successful future sexual intimacy (33).

I don't know that I fully understood this one, but it sounded good.

***

Parents can mistakenly attribute adult characteristics to adolescents who look like adults but are largely children. They need more time and experience before being expected to act and think completely as adults.

You can say that again.  So very often we think teens are more mature, but they're just big kids who are starting to understand all this!

***

Ideally, you should use the first eight to twelve years of a child’s life to prepare him for his teenage years. If you wait until adolescence to teach your children about the changes of puberty and about intimate relationships, you may not be able to influence them as easily. Children often retain their basic character traits through their teenage years. The kind, self-respecting child usually becomes a kind, self-respecting, and sexually well-adjusted young adult. The self-focused, unkind, self-indulgent child will often express these character traits in a sexual fashion during the teen years.

If this is true, I'm really excited for my 9 year old to be a teen!  This also boosts me in my resolve to be at home while my kids are young -- when I can have so much influence.

***

A girl who enjoys self-respect based upon development of a talent and esteem for her various womanly roles will be more inclined to appreciate spiritual truths. She will be less likely to desperately seek the attentions of lustful boys or accept the viewpoint of those who oppose marriage and the family (37).

We need our girls to have that self-respect!  (Here's even a recent article on the influence moms can have in helping their daughters not feel like they have to be sexy.)

***

Set the example of virtuous behavior in every aspect of your life. Obey the traffic laws, live within your income, keep your house and yard neat and attractive, be moderate in dress and in consumption of material goods, serve faithfully in Church callings, vote in each election, give regular service in Church welfare efforts, read the scriptures daily, hold family prayer, speak courteously, be modestly but openly affectionate, and be chaste in dress and language. Have daily prayers, give blessings to your children, fast, and bear your testimony (39).

I think that's a great way to live for anyone!

***

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners. This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth. Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union. . . . (49)

Honestly, I didn't expect to see that in writing anywhere.  Anything these days revolves around sex drive, so I'd love to have some backup data on this.  I like that it emphasizes again the emotional wholeness of a relationship, not just the part about sex.

Well, this ended up being a HUGE post, but it's fun to remember my thoughts and review this booklet. I can see why I procrastinated writing about it.  Definitely worth a read, though.

Nurturing Dads... now this is interesting!

The Deseret News ran this: 

Testosterone drops when men become nurturing dads

Some news reports on the study hinted a drop in testosterone might not be a good thing. "This is probably not the news most fathers want to hear," wrote Pam Belluck in a www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/research/13testosterone.html New York Times story.

"It could almost be demonized," said Gettler to the New York Times. He noted that, instead, "this should be viewed as, 'Oh, it's great, women aren't the only ones biologically adapted to be parents.'"

 

Canadian Study on the Influence of Fathers

My BIL (yes, brother-in-law, don't hear that too often), shared this report on fathers with me.

"Fathers make important contributions in the development of their children's behaviour and intelligence," says Erin Pougnet, a PhD candidate in the Concordia University Department of Psychology and a member of the Centre for Research in Human Development (CRDH).

"Compared with other children with absentee dads, kids whose fathers were active parents in early and middle childhood had fewer behaviour problems and higher intellectual abilities as they grew older -- even among socio-economically at-risk families. . . ."

The findings, however, should encourage governments to formulate policies that encourage increased and positive forms of contact between children and their fathers. "Initiatives such as parental leave for men and parenting classes that emphasize the role of fathers could help to maximize children's development from early childhood to preadolescence," says Serbin.

Family Work

I've recently felt the unfairness of me, the mother, taking on the majority of the family/household responsibilities.  Aren't we a team?  Shouldn't we all be helping out?  Why are we adults trying to do all the work while the children watch t.v., then find ways after work is done to go out and entertain the children some more?  I've also wondered if I'm too prude in at least wanting my family to help out more when I see so many around me creating excessive ways to entertain their children and avoid work at home. My friend Jamie posted a link to Family Work by Kathleen Slaugh Bahr and Cheri A. Loveless, which very well addressed my concerns.  You might think this post is long, but the article is even longer!  I'll share my favorite excerpts -- or just go read it yourself!

. . .Caring for our large family [of 13 children] kept all of us busy most of the time. Mother was the overseer of the inside work, and Dad the outside, but I also remember seeing my father sweep floors, wash dishes, and cook meals when his help was needed. As children we often worked together, but not all at the same task. While we worked we talked, sang, quarreled, made good memories, and learned what it meant to be family members, good sons or daughters and fathers or mothers, good Americans, good Christians (emphasis added).

As a young child, I didn't know there was anything unusual about this life. . . . Working hard was what families did, what they always had done. Their work was "family work," the everyday, ordinary, hands-on labor of sustaining life that cannot be ignored--feeding one another, clothing one another, cleaning and beautifying ourselves and our surroundings. It included caring for the sick and tending to the tasks of daily life for those who could not do it for themselves. . . .


. . .When I went to graduate school, I learned that not everyone considered this pattern of family life ideal. At the university, much of what I read and heard belittled family work. . . .  One professor taught that assigning the tasks of nurturing children primarily to women was the root of women's oppression. I was told that women must be liberated from these onerous family tasks so that they might be free to work for money.

. . . Chief among these forces is the idea that because money is power, one's salary is the true indication of one's worth. Another is that the important work of the world is visible and takes place in the public sphere--in offices, factories, and government buildings. According to this ideology, if one wants to make a difference in the world, one must do it through participation in the world of paid work. . . .

Back to Eden

According to scripture, then, the Lord blessed Adam and Eve (and their descendants) with two kinds of labor that would, by the nature of the work itself, help guarantee their salvation. Both of these labors--tilling the earth for food and laboring to rear children (emphasis added)--are family work, work that sustains and nurtures members of a family from one day to the next. But there is more to consider. These labors literally could not be performed in Eden. These are the labors that ensure physical survival; thus, they became necessary only when mankind left a life-sustaining garden and entered a sphere where life was quickly overcome by death unless it was upheld by steady, continual, hard work. Undoubtedly the Lord knew that other activities associated with mortality--like study and learning or developing one's talents--would also be important. But His initial emphasis, in the form of a commandment, was on that which had the power to bring His children back into His presence, and that was family work (emphasis added).


. . .Their work was difficult, and it filled almost every day of their lives. But they recognized their family work as essential, and it was not without its compensations. It was social and was often carried out at a relaxed pace and in a playful spirit.

Yet, long before the close of the 19th century this picture of families working together was changing. People realized that early death was often related to the harshness of their daily routine. . . .

. . . [R]eforms eventually transformed work patterns throughout our culture, which in turn changed the roles of men, women, and children within the family unit.

By the turn of the century, many fathers began to earn a living away from the farm and the household. Thus, they no longer worked side by side with their children. Where a son once forged ties with his father as he was taught how to run the farm or the family business, now he could follow his father's example only by distancing himself from the daily work of the household, eventually leaving home to do his work. 

. . .Historian John Demos notes:  . . ."Now, being fully a father meant being separated from one's children for a considerable part of every working day.^"

By the 1950s fathers were gone such long hours they became guests in their own homes. The natural connection between fathers and their children was supposed to be preserved and strengthened by playing together. However, play, like work, also changed over the course of the century, becoming more structured, more costly, and less interactive.

Initially, the changing role of women in the family was more subtle because the kind of work they did remained the same. Yet how their tasks were carried out changed drastically over the 20th century, influenced by the modernization of America's factories and businesses. "Housewives" were encouraged to organize, sterilize, and modernize. Experts urged them to purchase machines to do their physical labor and told them that market-produced goods and services were superior because they freed women to do the supposedly more important work of the mind.

Women were told that applying methods of factory and business management to their homes would ease their burdens and raise the status of household work by "professionalizing" it. Surprisingly, these innovations did neither. Machines tended to replace tasks once performed by husbands and children, while mothers continued to carry out the same basic duties. Houses and wardrobes expanded, standards for cleanliness increased, and new appliances encouraged more elaborate meal preparation. More time was spent shopping and driving children to activities. With husbands at work and older children in school, care of the house and young children now fell almost exclusively to mothers, actually lengthening their work day.³ Moreover, much of a mother's work began to be done in isolation. Work that was once enjoyable because it was social became lonely, boring, and monotonous.

Even the purpose of family work was given a facelift. Once performed to nurture and care for one another, it was reduced to "housework" and was done to create "atmosphere." Since work in the home had "use value" instead of "exchange value," it remained outside the market economy and its worth became invisible. Being a mother now meant spending long hours at a type of work that society said mattered little and should be "managed" to take no time at all.

Prior to modernization, children shared much of the hard work, laboring alongside their fathers and mothers in the house and on the farm or in a family business. . .

With industrialization, children joined their families in factory work, but gradually employers split up families, often rejecting mothers and fathers in favor of the cheap labor provided by children. . . . The child labor movement was thus organized to protect the "thousands of boys and girls once employed in sweat shops and factories" from "the grasping greed of business."⁴ However, the actual changes were much more complex and the consequences more far-reaching.⁵ Child labor laws, designed to end the abuses, also ended child labor (emphasis added).

At the same time that expectations for children to work were diminishing, new fashions in child rearing dictated that children needed to have their own money and be trained to spend it wisely. Eventually, the relationship of children and work inside the family completely reversed itself: children went from economic asset to pampered consumer.

Thus, for each family member the contribution to the family became increasingly abstract and ever distant from the labor of Adam and Eve, until the work given as a blessing to the first couple had all but disappeared. Today a man feels "free" if he can avoid any kind of physical labor--actual work in the fields is left to migrant workers and illegal aliens. Meanwhile, a woman is considered "free" if she chooses a career over mothering at home, freer still if she elects not to bear children at all.

 For Our Sakes

. . .[I]t is the very things commonly disliked about family work that offer the greatest possibilities for nurturing close relationships and forging family ties. Some people dislike family work because, they say, it is mindless (emphasis added). . . .We can talk, sing, or tell stories as we work. Working side by side tends to dissolve feelings of hierarchy, making it easier for children to discuss topics of concern with their parents. Unlike play, which usually requires mental concentration as well as physical involvement, family work invites intimate conversation between parent and child.

We also tend to think of household work as menial (emphasis added), and much of it is. Yet, because it is menial, even the smallest child can make a meaningful contribution. Children can learn to fold laundry, wash windows, or sort silverware with sufficient skill to feel valued as part of the family. . . .


Another characteristic of ordinary family work that gives it such power is repetition (emphasis added). . . . However, each rendering of a task is a new invitation for all to enter the family circle.

Some people also insist that family work is demeaning (emphasis added) because it involves cleaning up after others in the most personal manner. Yet, in so doing, we observe their vulnerability and weaknesses in a way that forces us to admit that life is only possible day-to-day by the grace of God. We are also reminded of our own dependence on others who have done, and will do, such work for us. We are reminded that when we are fed, we could be hungry; when we are clean, we could be dirty; and when we are healthy and strong, we could be feeble and dependent. . . .


. . .This daily work of feeding and clothing and sheltering each other is perhaps the only opportunity all humanity has in common. Whatever the world takes from us, it cannot take away the daily maintenance needed for survival. . .  (emphasis added).

Family Work in Modern Times

. . .Families working harmoniously together at a relaxed pace is a wonderful ideal, but what about the realities of our day? Men do work away from home, and many feel out-of-step when it comes to family work. Children do go to school, and between homework and other activities do not welcome opportunities to work around the house. Whether mothers are employed outside the home or not, they often live in exhaustion, doing most of the family work without willing help. . . .

. . .Spencer W. Kimball was particularly insistent on the need to grow gardens. . . 

I hope that we understand that, while having a garden, for instance, is often useful in reducing food costs and making available delicious fresh fruits and vegetables, it does much more than this. Who can gauge the value of that special chat between daughter and Dad as they weed or water the garden? How do we evaluate the good that comes from the obvious lessons of planting, cultivating, and the eternal law of the harvest? And how do we measure the family togetherness and cooperating that must accompany successful canning? Yes, we are laying up resources in store, but perhaps the greater good is contained in the lessons of life we learn as we live providently and extend to our children their pioneer heritage. (Emphasis in original.) 

Exemplifying the Attitudes We Want Our Children to Have

. . .Until we feel about family work the way we want our children to feel about it, we will teach them nothing. If we dislike this work, they will know it. If we do not really consider it our work, they will know it. If we wish to hurry and get it out of the way or if we wish we were doing it alone so it could better meet our standards, they will know it. . . .

Refusing Technology That Interferes With Togetherness

. . . Before we accept a scientific "improvement," we should ask ourselves what we are giving up for what we will gain. . . .


Insisting Gently That Children Help


A frequent temptation in our busy lives today is to do the necessary family work by ourselves. A mother, tired from a long day of work in the office, may find it easier to do the work herself than to add the extra job of getting a family member to help. A related temptation is to make each child responsible only for his own mess, to put away his own toys, to clean his own room, to do his own laundry, and then to consider this enough family work to require of a child. When we structure work this way, we may shortchange ourselves by minimizing the potential for growing together that comes from doing the work for and with each other.

Canadian scholars Joan Grusec and Lorenzo Cohen, along with Australian Jacqueline Goodnow, compared children who did "self-care tasks" such as cleaning up their own rooms or doing their own laundry, with children who participated in "family-care tasks" such as setting the table or cleaning up a space that is shared with others. They found that it is the work one does "for others" that leads to the development of concern for others, while "work that focuses on what is one's 'own,'" does not. Other studies have also reported a positive link between household work and observed actions of helpfulness toward others. In one international study, African children who did "predominantly family-care tasks [such as] fetching wood or water, looking after siblings, running errands for parents" showed a high degree of helpfulness while "children in the Northeast United States, whose primary task in the household was to clean their own room, were the least helpful of all the children in the six cultures that were studied" (emphasis added).


Avoiding a Business Mentality at Home

. . .[F]amily work should be directed with the wisdom of a mentor who knows intimately both the task and the student, who appreciates both the limits and the possibilities of any given moment. A common error is to try to make the work "fun" with a game or contest, yet to chastise children when they become naturally playful ("off task," to our thinking). Fond family memories often center around spontaneous fun while working, like pretending to be maids, drawing pictures in spilled flour, and wrapping up in towels to scrub the floor. Another error is to reward children monetarily for their efforts. According to financial writer Grace Weinstein, "Unless you want your children to think of you as an employer and of themselves not as family members but as employees, you should think long and hard about introducing money as a motivational force. Money distorts family feeling and weakens the members' mutual support."

Working Side by Side With Our Children

I am still in awe of the power of shared participation in the simple, everyday work of sustaining life. Helping one another nurture children, care for the land, prepare food, and clean homes can bind lives together. This is the power of family work, and it is this power, available in every home, no matter how troubled, that can end the turmoil of the family, begin to change the world, and bring again Zion.

So, I think I came away with some really good things (in addition to all the quotes).

How can I make work enjoyable?  Make it social by working side by side, talking, singing, and telling stories.

I also really enjoyed the Spencer W. Kimball quote about having a garden.  It seems like the stereotypical culture in Mormondom is to have a garden, bake bread, sew cute things, have a neat house, etc., and we expect the mother to do all those things, so she ends up doing them frazzled in isolation.  But really, the primary purpose is not for the mother to learn and do those tasks, but for her to connect with her family through them.  To me then, it almost seems pointless in doing those things if there is no connection made and no one is learning.

My husband pointed out that when we work together as a family doing family tasks we teach interdependence, not independence.  Independence can be a good thing, but it can take us away from connecting with and caring or others; interdependence brings us closer together.

Related Posts:


Father Come Home
The Art of Manliness
Teaching the Doctrine on the Family

No dad, no problem? No way!

Cheryl pointed me to Fatherless America? A third of children now live without dad; incredible stats.

Alarmed by growing evidence of the importance of fatherhood, President Barack Obama, who was raised by a single mother, has forcefully pleaded with fathers to step up throughout his presidency.

 "In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence — both in my life and in the lives of others," Obama wrote in a 2009 Father's Day piece in Parade Magazine. "I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference."

  ...While the divorce rate has dropped in recent years, it's not an indication that more families are staying together. Rather, Hawkins said, more people are choosing not to get married in the first place. 

For many years, marriage and children "were a packaged deal," he said, "and society was pretty good at enforcing that with strong cultural norms." Things started shifting during the sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s.

...The move away from marriage is a result of a bigger shift in American values that Hawkins calls a loss of "child centeredness." At one time, society expected adults to make decisions based largely on what was best for the children.

"Marriage isn't about kids anymore," he said. "It's about my satisfaction as an adult, my emotional well-being, my personal development."

A large percentage of today's young moms and dads are children of divorce and, therefore, wary of marriage. For many, Hawkins said, the logical solution is cohabitation. In 1960, there were only about 197,000 unmarried couples raising children together, the U.S. Census Bureau reported. In 2009, there were more than 2.5 million.

"Most of these couples are together when the baby comes and they have high hopes for staying that way," Hawkins said. "Unfortunately, only a small percentage are able to hold that together and solidify that relationship. It's even easier to leave your kid when you haven't got a legal commitment holding you there."

In a five-year study following 5,000 children, the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, D.C., found 80 percent of fathers provide support to mothers during pregnancy and more than 70 percent visit their children at the hospital. At the time of birth, a vast majority indicated they wanted to help raise their child.

Five years down the road, however, only 35 percent of unmarried couples had gotten married. About 40 percent of unmarried mothers had already broken up with their child's father and entered into at least one new partnership. Fourteen percent had a child with a new partner.

"Most fathers care about their children," said Victor Nelson, a marriage and family therapist from Logan. "They've given up on making things work with the mother, but most want to figure out some sort of solution for their kids."

But even if fathers keep in touch after a breakup, children suffer...

...A study by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services found only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families where the biological mother and father are married to each other. Thirty-three percent come from families where the parents have divorced. Forty-four percent have parents who were never married. The University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University both found young men who grow up in homes without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families — even when other factors like race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant.

"Something about not having a father in the picture seems to make at least certain types of boys more likely to engage in aggressive violent behavior..."

Despite socioeconomic status, however, just having a father at home makes a child more likely to succeed at school, according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.

Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to run away from home and commit suicide, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eighty-five percent of children with behavioral disorders don't have a father at home.

...For girls, living in a father-absent home has physical consequences. Without a father, said Erin Holmes, an assistant professor in BYU's School of Family Life, girls tend to go through puberty sooner. A recent study by three U.S. universities found the earlier a father left, the greater risk a girl was at for getting pregnant as a teen.

Fatherlessness is also associated with eating disorders and depression, Holmes said.

...Being a father is more than just being male and showing up, said Holmes, who studies the effects of father involvement. Children who have poor relationships with their fathers or even those whose fathers are away from home working for extensive periods of time are at risk for some of the same problems as a child without a father...

"Sometimes fathers aren't in homes because they weren't doing good fathering," Holmes said. "We're not just saying, 'Let's get dads back in homes.' We're saying, 'Let's get dads doing good fathering.' "

The Two Trees

My husband saw a link on facebook the other day to an article/speech called The Two Trees (meaning the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life) by Valerie Hudson Cassler.  He knew I would like it.  He was right.  Cassler very broadly and clearly explains how woman is not without the man, and man is not without the woman in order to progress in our eternal existence.

Specifically, woman's duty is to bring man into the world through birth (or in Eve's case, she was responsible to eat the fruit and get mortality rolling for them and for the rest of humanity).  Adam's (or man's) responsibility was for spiritual salvation:  he was to get the family out of this world (at death) in a righteous state.

This is where the whole submitting thing comes into play.  Cassler, however, doesn't use the word submit, she uses the word hearken and gives this example:

Women, do we hearken to our husbands? Well, of course we do. If my husband said to me before we were married, "Honey, I want to be married in the temple, and I don't want to be married anywhere else." I would say, "You betcha!" If after we were married and had children, he said, "Honey, I want to hold family home evening, and I want to hold family prayer, and I want to make sure they get baptized when they are eight." I would say, "You bet! I'm going to accept and receive that fruit of the Second Tree from you." If my husband said, "Honey, would you go get me the remote, it's in the other room," or "Tomorrow we're moving to Iowa, did I tell you?" It is not my spiritual obligation to hearken outside of loving my husband and receiving from him the gift of the fruit of the Second Tree.

 A few more interesting quotes:

. . . I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

Now our [LDS] General Authorities have told us that that perspective is absolutely wrong, and that indeed when the term "helpmeet" is used, as I am sure you are well familiar, that "meet" actually means "equal in power to save." So let's read here from Elder Earl C. Tingey: "You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to us. We walk side by side with a helpmeet, not one before or behind the other. A helpmeet results in an absolute equal partnership between a husband and a wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other. . . ."

And then in the King James version of the Bible, we are told that Eve, as part of her punishment, that she was told that Adam would rule over her. Is that what the LDS believe? Actually not. I think one of the most important new—I can't say new doctrine, because obviously it started with Adam and Eve, but rather a rediscovering of truth—appeared n the August 2007 Ensign. . . . If you read it, here's what Elder Bruce Hafen says: "Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to "rule over" Eve, but. . . over in "rule over" uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over. . . . The concept of interdependent equal partners is well-grounded in the doctrine of the restored gospel."

The real drama of human societies is what's happening between men and women. It isn't treaties and wars and the price of oil or how the stock market is doing. . . .   . . . we can say that the situation of women is a barometer of how near death a civilization is. It is because where love and equality between men and women do not exist, you cannot live the Gospel. You might as well start anew. . . .That means that gender equality is not some "politically correct" ideal . . . . No, relationships of gender equality are the bricks of Zion, without which you cannot build Zion. . . .

At the end of the article, Cassler shares a parable of the whole plan for woman and man, easy enough for a child to understand. The article was very enlightening and you'd get much more out of the 9 pages if you read them!  If I could put it in very simple terms:  if you were playing a video game (not that I have in years) and had already chosen your players (man/woman), and it was now time to choose your armor, woman would choose child bearing and man would choose the priesthood.  Woman fulfills her duty by bearing children.  Man fulfills his duty by leading the family back to God in righteousness.

One last interesting point that Cassler makes (actually at the beginning of the article) is that she is a feminist.  She says "I didn't join the [LDS] Church because I was a feminist, but I stay in the Church because I am a feminist."  She seems to feel the equality between men and women is well manifest (and believed) in the LDS Church.  That was interesting to me because many of the popular Mormon feminists today still don't agree with that viewpoint.  I tend to relate to feminists and the feminist cause mainly because I, too, like the equality and also because of the history (not really the modern movement).  I'll have to write a post on why I like feminists some time.

Father Come Home?

I was finishing up listening to the Conversation with the Hollands and got really interested when they began talking about their days at Yale in the late 1960s and 1970s (about minute 46:00) just after The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan came out and when Gloria Steinem spoke there a few times.  Sister Holland said she could see a negative impact emerge among the young couples at Yale because of the feminist movement.

Sister Holland mentioned how Betty Friedan said the feminists had thought of everything to liberate women, but even later in her life admitted that the movement forgot the children!  I believe I also read this point in The Feminine Minority, by Patricia Regar, but I haven't looked up the quote myself.

President Holland interjected that he thought the model of feminism of the period was actually backwards.  The movement was to get women out of the bondage of home life, when really it should have been how to get the men back in the home sharing the workload.  He said he has nothing against helping out with the dishes, laundry, and budget (or whatever).

I couldn't believe it!  How right is that?!  I can't believe in all the hours I've thought about the feminist movement that I'd NEVER thought of the great impact bringing men home (or just getting them more involved) can have.  I think I get too caught up on our economic setup of men/jobs being out of the home, that I forget how much they can and should contribute in the home. 

Interestingly, the other day I'd read an article that LAF/Beautiful Womanhood linked to over at The Art of Manliness about how during the agricultural days, men were home, then came the Industrial Revolution which took many men out of the home, and men just continue to be further and further away from the home and child rearing.  The author at The Art of Manliness hopes that more men can be involved in family life because of technology -- allowing them to work at least some of the time from home.  (Let me tell ya -- when my husband occasionally works from home, it does make all the difference!  Even when he's home sick and baby's asleep, I have the freedom to run to the store!  I have several friends whose husbands often work from home and what a help it is to them!  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!  Let's get these husbands more involved rather than trying to get ourselves away from our homes!)

Earlier in the program, one of the Hollands mentioned how Mary was not a single mother.  Joseph was provided to be Jesus's earthly father:  Children need fathers.

They also bear their amazing, beautiful, inspiring testimonies of the Gospel at the end.  Even if you don't get excited about feminism or anything else they said, their testimonies are well worth listening to.