Mother's Day and Feminism

[origamikaren]

We had a talk in church today that really bothered me.

In it, there was a story of a woman who was a farmer's wife.  When she and her young husband had taken over his father's farm it already had a huge mortgage.  They had big plans, but by the time the story took place, they were both overworked and falling behind.  She didn't have tome to do laundry, and keep house, and take care of the chickens, and get the tomatoes picked and taken to market, and take care of the children, and get all the fruit in from the orchard before it rotted.  

So she did what she could, but the house was a mess, and the mortgage payment was overdue, and the children were unwashed, and she was too tired to even care anymore.

Then one day while she's struggling to haul in a load of tomatoes to take to market, a car comes down the road, and a beautifully dressed lady comes to the door and wants to buy some apples, so the farm wife takes her out to the orchard, and starts to haul out the big ladder to get at the good ones, and the lady is all, "No don't do that, it's too heavy for you, that's man's  work."  and the farmwife laughs in her face and says, "Look lady, you're all fine in your pretty grey wool suit, but if I don't do a man's work around here, we just won't make it."

Then the lady says, "When we were first married, and my husband was first starting out his company, he wanted me to keep my job as a secretary while he went out and did sales, but I knew that if we did that, we'd both be tired at the end of the day and we'd only eat takeout, and we'd both be miserable, so I stayed at home and made sure we had a feast on the table every night, even if it wasn't out of much, and we had some hard times, but we got by."

So then the lady leaves, but accidentally drops her perfumed handkerchief on the way out, and when the farmwife finds it, she decides to ignore the tomatoes, and let them rot in the barn for all she cares, and she puts on her one pretty dress, and cleans the kitchen, and makes a good meal, and when her husband comes in from the fields that night, and she's looking all pretty and serves him that nice meal he looks more grateful than he did when she hauled in all those potatoes last fall, and she knows now what her husband really wants from her: a clean house, a good meal, and a smiling face.

Is it just me, or is this story of the devil?

It totally sets up unrealistic expectations for women, and implies that if they can't get the laundry done that they've failed in their true calling in life, and maybe lost the love and respect of their husbands as well.  It was further compounded by the fact that the next song we sang was "There is Beauty All Around" which implies that if you can't see the roses blooming beneath your feet, you must not have enough love in your family.

Maybe it's just because I'm having trouble even jugging work and keeping house, let alone the fact that everybody that hears I'm newly married makes me feel guilty about putting off having kids until Peter's job offers him benefits, and I'm just jealous of my cousins and sisters in law who can stay home and have beautiful little blonde babies, but I was seriously in tears by the end of sacrament meeting.

Any thoughts?

-Karen

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Excellent place for a rant such as this... As the story went on I just became more and more incredulous. Besides the fact that it gives a huge undeserved guilt trip to very wonderful women, it bears no connection to the reality of actual farm life. The person who wrote it obviously never worked or lived on a farm. What they heck were they thinking? EVERYONE on a farm works their tails off. The kids don't just go play in the orchard all day...what's up with apples AND tomatoes AND potatoes AND chickens? And exactly WHERE was the husband all day long? He didn't seem to be on the same farm at all...makes no sense... And if the wife stays inside all day long and lets the tomatoes and potatoes and apples (and chickens) rot, well, you're still gonna have a bunch of rotten tomatoes and potatoes and apples (and chickens) at the end of the day!

But I don't mean to distract from the rant's underlying message. The details I'm quibbling about aren't important. The unrealistic expectations and guilt-tripping pounded home by this VERY LONG STORY IN A SACRAMENT TALK by a sister who is, I'm sure, a very nice person, compounding what is surely years of similar messages, has lasting poisonous psychological effects.

The Brethren don't cross that line when they give talks on womanhood. On the local ward level, the messages are often not correctly inspired.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Maybe it's just because I'm having trouble even jugging work and keeping house, let alone the fact that everybody that hears I'm newly married makes me feel guilty about putting off having kids until Peter's job offers him benefits, and I'm just jealous of my cousins and sisters in law who can stay home and have beautiful little blonde babies, but I was seriously in tears by the end of sacrament meeting.

I sympathize with you, and I'm sorry that it hit so close to home.
We're in the same situation of waiting for health insurance, and now we've been married for over two years.  We've been fortunate that we haven't been picked on or made to feel guilty about it yet.  And our main talk today was pretty nice.

But I agree - that story is dumb.  And, speaking as a Capricorn, ridiculously impractical, as Peter said, since the author sounds like they know nothing about farms.  If the family in question weren't on a farm, then it might not sound so ridiculous, but as it is it just sounds full of itself.

[Entsuropi]

We're in the same situation of waiting for health insurance, and now we've been married for over two years.  We've been fortunate that we haven't been picked on or made to feel guilty about it yet.

/me looks puzzled

Why... would people pick on you for it?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Well not picked on, like in the normal sense, but made to feel guilty about not having kids yet.  There's supposed to be this ideal that you get married and start having kids right away because that's what good mormon families do or something.

Actually.... that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, can anyone else explain it better?

[stacer]

I'm totally feeling you on that one, Karen. We had a very similar talk in a singles' ward about how--and I quote--"a woman's place is only in the home, not to ever work." And the girl had started out by quoting the Proclamation on the Family, in which it makes allowances for exceptions. Not that everyone is an exception, but I'll tell you what--I grew up on a farm, and that story is hooey. Not only do the husband and wife work, but the kids have their own chores according to their ages and abilities. From the time I was in 4th grade (which is when we went to live with my dad on the farm), I had the charge of several different animals, yardwork, firewood, etc. We all helped out and worked together, and we barely made ends meet. If she leaves the fruit in the orchard to rot, they very soon won't have an orchard to neglect.

NOT TO MENTION!

--is all a husband wants of a wife for her to look ornamental and to clean house? Is that all a wife is? Or is it a partner, with whom he'll work side by side? So if the orchard, or whatever business the family is in, starts to get overwhelming, wouldn't he want her by his side supporting him, and wouldn't he want to support her so that her job--raising the kids, taking care of the house and garden, etc.--is manageable, too? By the end of the story, it sounded to me like she was a single mother raising hellions who weren't willing to help her.

My particular Mother's Day rant is encompassed by that talk in my sacrament meeting, as well: Can't people take the care to recognize in their talks that mothers are not the all-perfect uber-human beings we pretend they are? Yes, so some people have mothers who they can talk to and who support them and who met them after school every day for 12 years and gave them snacks and hugs and whatever. But some of us haven't ever and won't ever experience that. So don't give talks saying things like, "you all know what I'm talking about--you've all experienced such-and-such of a mother's love." No, thanks, I haven't. I've had mother-figures who have loved me like that, but they have been rare. I know my mom loves me, but she's incapable of being that kind of superwoman, and she's not really that good at even being a regular mom. I don't fault her for it, but stop idolizing mothers. Or at least stop pretending it's a universal experience to have had a good mother.

It's not to say that we shouldn't be grateful for good mothers in our lives. And it's not to say that we shouldn't discuss how to be better mothers, or how to prepare for such a time when we might be mothers. But that's a lot different than idolization. That's based in the real world. And perhaps that's what your speaker was trying and failing miserably to talk about--how to be a better mother. But I think any such talk needs to get over the performance of idolization and start talking about real doctrine.

[stacer]

I got off track and forgot I wanted to say this, as well on the idea of being equal partners: That's one thing that growing up on a farm made me desire in a husband--someone who was my equal partner, someone with whom I'd work side by side. I actually always thought I'd grow up to marry a farmer, and that really appealed to me--how the entire family is always near each other and working together. My dad was a truck driver for many years to earn enough money to raise us, but in his heart he's a farmer.

Before, during, and after the 17 years he drove a truck, when he wasn't out on the road, he was splitting and chopping firewood with us beside him to load it, or he was out mending fences or baling hay with at least one of us kids out in the field with him. Our favorite thing to do in the summers and on the weekends was to go to the coffee shop with Dad (he's not Mormon) and get hot chocolate while he chatted with the other local farmers.

Now, I know I won't marry a farmer at this point (though if I'd married my first boyfriend, which had been a distinct possibility back then, I might now be a farm wife). But the principle remains--I like the idea of a partnership in marriage, where you both pull equal weight in the home, and both contribute to the well-being of the family in whatever way works for that family. As the Proclamation says, men are primarily responsible for providing for the family, and women are primarily responsible for the rearing of the children. My dad provided for us, and when he was home, he was rearing us in his own way, while providing for other things we needed (heat, for example, with the firewood--we had a wood-burning furnace, our only source of heat).

Anyway, as you can see, I could rant on this for a while.

[Entsuropi]

There's supposed to be this ideal that you get married and start having kids right away because that's what good mormon families do or something.

But... why?



I propose a simple problem: Stab anyone who says foolish things like that to you. It's the method endorsed by 100% of people who are me.

[Archon]

I second said solution, adding in a slight percentage of approval amongst those who aren't Entropy.

[42]

I think the point of that story is too illustrate that most people would be happy with less as long they accomplish what is important. I also think that story does a horrible job of illustrating that. It makes the whole issue seem very trivial.

Personally, I'm frustrated with how women are treated in supposedly "modern" societies. I don't like the "either or" mentality of women either having to work (full-time and then some) or not working at all.

I know that on a macro-economic level, advanced societies have gotten used to paying cost of living wages that are only sufficient for one person to live on, not enough for a family, thus many woman are forced into some form of monetary employment. Thus the super-woman expectations.

It's just a complicated issue that requires people to be flexible. I get furious at people (men and woman) who expect that starting a family shouldn't inconvienent their lives. It is going to be difficult and it will mean making some sacrifices. But I think most people understand that.

I don't like the attitude that I've encountered in some places (a lot in Europe), where they have the attitude that starting a family is a luxery, not a necessity. That kind of stupidity makes me feel that those cultures deserve their slow depopulation and extinction.

I can understand people wanting to wait until they have health benefits, or sufficient money saved, before having a child. For many couples I can see the immense amount of patience and sacrifice that it takes to wait to have a child when you know you will be able to care for that child.

On the flip side, there is the very hard, and often hurtful, truth that biology doesn't wait for financing. Hence I can see where people go off on couples waiting to have children. I have an aunt who decided with her husband to wait until he finished medical school to start having children. Well, he finished medical school quickly, but it was already too late for my aunt, who was never able to have her own children. And despite the great advancements in fertility treatment, many fertility treatments don't work and all of them are rather expensive.

Personally, I am a proponent of the stay at home wife. I have to admit that I don't think many women understand why men like to have their wifes stay at home. The primary role of a man in a family is to be the provider. Being give the option to your wife to stay at home is a sign that you have become are a good provider. If she his has work, well that doesn't look as good. It also makes any man that isn't a deadbeat uneasy. It starts diminishing the husbands role to just being a genetic donor.

Course then many women come out screaming that men should help out more around the house. Unfortuantely, most women have convinced most men that they are completely useless in child-rearing and house-keeping. Just look at the ratio of male teachers to female teachers. Things are changing on this front, but they are changing very slowly and for many men the scars are permenent.

So it is a very complicated issue that has no easy answers like that stupid story seemed to imply. The complexity also makes the miracle of motherhood that much more miraculous. IMHO

[stacer]

I guess you could say that I'm a proponent of the pre-industrial revolution family economic model: everyone works from home. Not exactly something that most people can do. I plan--hope--to be a stay-at-home mom someday. But historically, the stay-at-home mom is a relatively new phenomenon. (Or rather, the husband-goes-off-to-work thing is the new thing.)

[JP Dogberry]

I see nothing wrong with either model:  One partner stays at home, or both work. If it works for the couple, it's great.

Actually, you'd probably call me a blasphemer if I suggested I like the extended polygamous family proposed in the book I just read where multiple Co-Wives and Co-Husbands raise children collectively. The idea, of course, is that if something happens to one adult, it's not a big deal. One can leave for ten years without problems because of the others.

Of course, it is based on the time frame of people living to a few thousand years old if unlucky.

Still, I personally havn't come close enough for any of this to matter, so I'm talking out of my butt.

[Spriggan]

Is it just me, or is this story of the devil?

It totally sets up unrealistic expectations for women, and implies that if they can't get the laundry done that they've failed in their true calling in life, and maybe lost the love and respect of their husbands as well.  It was further compounded by the fact that the next song we sang was "There is Beauty All Around" which implies that if you can't see the roses blooming beneath your feet, you must not have enough love in your family.

Any thoughts?

-Karen

Since no one else has made any innaporpreate remarks here let me be the first to chime in and say "If a kitchen isn't clean and the laundry is still brown then the woman who's responcible has faild miserably."

----Thank you

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

hrm. I feel like I should lead of with this, which hopefully won't make me too unpopular.

I am grateful beyond words can express that my mother was at home with me. She rasied us good and was always there when I got home from school. I didn't get most of the cool stuff my friends had, but now, 20 some odd years later, I'm am extremely glad that I wasn't a "latch-key" kid. The only thing I'm more grateful for than that is that my wife is at home with the kids.

and to echo 42, very few who have commented so far understand why a man wants a clean home and pretty wife and good food on the table when he gets home. Yes, that's what I want. I'm happy with any one of the three, given that three kids makes it hard to do even that one at times, but that's what I want.

And no, it's not because I want an ornament or decoration. I am not trying to pick a fight with this line, but I do find it hurtful when a woman implies (or clearly states) that wanting that means I'm a misogynist.

I want that because that means I can have confidence an affirmation that MY responsibility is taken care of. Enough money has come in. My wife doesn't have to go out to take care of those responsibilities. It's not *required* of her to work. She has the *luxury* of being at home without working. I am thus productive and giving enough to our family to keep us going.

Now, also acknowledging what 42 said: unfortunately western society (at least, I have little enough knowledge of contemporary eastern society) is continuing to develop in a direction where the woman is expected to have income. They don't pay one person in a growing number of places enough to get along on just one income. THis is a shame on our society. Note, it is *not* a shame on the women forced to participate, but the expectations and arrangement of the family that socity has developed.

Now, the story, from what has been said here, does not seem to make the point that it should have made: that we should be more accepting of the lack of luxuries if we can get along on just one income. The story seems to imply that the woman shouldn't do anything at all but make babies and dinner. I concur with the rest of you that the moral of the story is severely misdirected. It does no good to have a clean home and a nice dinner if your next meal is going to be from a can of beans you found in a dumpster because you weren't able to pay the mortgage on your simple home.  Yes, that story was severely whack.

The proper attitude is that if you *can* take care of your family, then the extras are just that: extras. Reaching for them before raising your children and feeding them properly is a misalignment of priorities.

However, again, the story's problem is it genuinely appears that these characters would have more than reasonable hardship if the wife wasn't out there helping out.

As for benies: have your acquaintences bothered to *look* at the cost of doctor's bills lately, Karen? I'm thinking they probably haven't. It is likely, from what little I know about Ookla's income, that it might be hard to get dinner on the table if you guys were paying for doctor's bills so you could have children before you got benefits. From what I know, I think you are very wise to wait. Better to keep fed than meet an unreasonable expectation. No, there's never a convenient time to have a baby, but there are some pretty heinous times to decide to try. If your budget is tight without benefits, it'll be completely unmanageable if you added ob/gyn appointments into the factors.

I don't think the Lord has ever said "don't work outside the home" without immediately adding "unless you are only doing it to add luxuries to your lifestyle.

final acknowledgement: i'm not directly contradicting things that have been said above: Women still have to participate in managing the household. If that means picking apples or feeding animals or whatever, well, that's what it means. IF the man can do all of it, that's ideal. But on a full sized farm, I don't believe that's reasonable.

[stacer]

SE, I don't think you and I are disagreeing. When I said that about being an ornament, I was talking about the story's implication--it implied that all that mattered, whether the work of the farm got done, was that the wife was pretty, the house was clean, and the kids well-ordered. It seemed pretty superficial, given the circumstances the story presented.

As far as the rest, I think that the terminology sometimes doesn't really work for me, is all. To say that a woman shouldn't "work" is a fallacy, because what is raising kids and running a household but work--and hard work at that. I've been on IM with you plenty of times when you've gone to rescue a kid or put the kids to bed or whatever--you don't just sit around and tell your wife that that's her area, you provide, so that's the breaks if your little girl is in the corner screaming. I've known people to say that that's exactly what should happen--the man "works," so the woman has *all* providence at home, like some strange Victorian/50s thing where the guy comes home and all he does the rest of the night is put his feet up while the wife runs around chasing kids.

Do you see my point?

Also, I don't think it's bad--which I said above--that some people's moms stayed home with them. Mine stayed home most of the time, but we didn't live with her.

My stepmom stayed home sometimes, when she didn't have a job, and watched soap operas all day, and when we got home we cleaned the house and served her like maids. It would have been really nice if she'd done her part--I wouldn't have minded doing my part if she had. But mostly we couldn't afford to live on what my dad made as a truck driver alone--my dad made about $15000 a year less than I make now, and he was raising four kids--so she worked a lot. You're right, it's a luxury, and I don't think we acknowledge that often enough.

I'm not making much sense, it's too early in the morning. But the point I was making above, last night, was that there is family work in the home that all share in, whether it's a farm or a suburban household. Working in the garden together as a family, for example. Working together as a family binds those family ties tighter--it's a proven fact (pulling out a few family science major facts).

So my points are interweaving, but they're two different points. I'm not advocating that women should work outside the home unless absolutely necessary, but I am saying that work within the home should be a community effort (with, of course, the responsibility of a stay-at-home mom being much greater in proportion during the day when the husband's at work) (not to mention that when kids are small, they won't be helping too much with chores).

My other point was just that I'm tired of talks about how perfect someone's mother is and making the connection that therefore all mothers are perfect. Sure, talk about gratitude, talk about the doctrine. But I wish the sacrament talks would stop idolizing mothers and assuming that everyone has had such an experience.  Acknowledge that there are other mother-figures besides mothers themselves (for me, for example, in high school it was a Young Women leader). General Conference talks mention such things--why can't we let that carry over into our sacrament discussions? Make sense?