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

Have They Been Taught?

I thought this post on "Sexual Misconduct in Dating -- and what it does to the mind of the woman" was rather interesting.  Here's an excerpt:

President Hinkley was once asked something like, “The unmarried of the church are unclear about what it means to stay morally clean.”  President Hinkley replied with something like, “Oh they know (the rules), they know.”

Unfortunately, I have repeatedly been told stories of behaviors that cause me to believe that either some of my brethren out there either don’t know the rules, or need to be reminded of them and the effects of not following them.

I, too, believe, for the most part, the unmarried know "the rules," but the tendency to justify breaking them must be huge.

The Language of Children

A bit back I read a post on MMB by Braden Bell entitled, Getting What You Want in Your Marriage regarding communication.   He addressed the situation where women (in general) drop hints rather than asking directly for something.  I probably drop hints more often than I think I do because I've always figured it was the more polite way to ask for something.  I guess I've felt that if I have to say, "Honey, will you grab the screaming baby out of my arms so I can put the gallon of milk back in the fridge?" it would insult my husband's intelligence because shouldn't it be obvious that if I were holding a screaming child while trying to get the milk back in the fridge, that I would need help?  Well, apparently, it's better to ask specifically, than to assume that my husband will know that I need help.

As I've thought dropping hints was the superior way to communicate, rather than to insult someone's intelligence, I was surprised when Bell suggested this type of communication was inferior and ineffective compared to just asking.  (OK, maybe he didn't actually say inferior and ineffective, but he definitely didn't favor hinting!)

OK, now to my point.  I just started reading Between Parent and Child by Haim Ginott.  Chapter One is entitled, "The Code of Communication."  On page 5, Ginott suggests that children speak "in a code that requires deciphering," and on page 6 mentions children asking "hidden questions."  I was intrigued because the language of children sure sounded a lot like the communication of (some) women.  If that is true, and there are more similarities between the way children and women communicate, doesn't that give a bit of weight to mothers being the primary nurturers?

My next question is, so when do boys stop speaking the "language of children" and move onto the more direct language of men(/adults)?

True Beauty

This from Mona at MMB:

I learned that I had put too much emphasis on “mastering” my body, instead of figuring out how to work in harmony with it: reminding myself of the authentic reasons for having a body: to build the Kingdom of God on earth by freely sharing what my body can do for family and others.  (Stretch marks, grandma jelly-bellies, dishpan hands, and dark circles under the eyes have a glorious aspect!) In this paradigm, caring for and respecting the body is not only an advantage in this life, but will be “so much the advantage in the world to come”. Who, I reasoned, will have the greatest satisfaction on resurrection morning – she who revered, honored, and shared that part of her soul called “body”, or she who ill-fed, hoarded, complained about, or degraded it?

When to say yes

Deila posted an insightful letter over at MMB regarding modesty.  In the letter, she stated, "Twenty years ago, I would tell my young daughter, "Barbie can wear this, but you can't--when you get married you can wear it in the bedroom."

Do you think in LDS culture we tend to forget the last part of that statement?  I thought saying things like this might help our girls be more comfortable with their bodies?

...

I just noticed this comment at the bottom of the page: 

I don't think modesty is just for the men. I have strong feelings about what immodesty does to women. It perpetuates the 'women as objects/sexual appeal as power' mentality. Men aren't the only ones who have a hard time looking past the surface appearance. There is a reason eating disorders, etc. are at an all-time high.

Modesty to me is about more than just class. It is about true power -- power that comes from self-respect and respect for others, from an ability to stay away from the dangerous myths about beauty and worth, from the ability to avoid the temptation to seek unrighteous dominion through sexual power, and from living according to truth about the body and sexuality as a gift and holy stewardship.

"Like."

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.

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.' "