1 – “Often, children develop a preference for a particular parent to whom they turn in times of crisis (scrapped knee, severe disappointment, wet bed, what have you). Generally speaking, this is the parent with whom they spend the most time“

On what is this claim based? I don’t mean for that question to sound all antagonistic, but I’m curious because it is quite the opposite in my home (where I am gone and my wife stays home, yet my kids prefer me for comfort). I always thought of my situation as the norm, where “absence makes the heart grow fonder” was at play.

2 – I guess my beef with this is that the same can be accomplished even in a home where one parent works and the other stays at home. I parent when I’m home from work, so I know how to do all the things my kids need, etc. My wife is much better at many of those things (e.g., she can change a poopy with a single wipe, whereas I might use three for the same mess) because she does them more, but I can (and do) still do them. That means there is no concern about her being gone for book club, etc. The only exception to this was when our kids were breast feeding—something I was just never willing to try. Call me old-fashioned.

3-5 Again, I could say the same about my family, but I won’t belabor each point. My overall point is that all of the benefits you identify of equal parenting can be accomplished in a stay-at-home/go-to-work model as well. All of the benefits you list. So when you ask “I think equally shared parenting embraces the spirit of the Proclamation better than the one-at-home one-at-work model of parenting. What do you think?” I have to say, No way.

Now, if your point is that “equal parenting” is compatible with the Proclamation, I whole-heartedly agree. But you said “better than.”

(there should have been “If and only if” symbols between the two clauses of the two sentences in the second paragraph above.)

I’m not comfortable with the titles tossed about here but I agree with the previous comments that “equal” parenting can happen in homes where both parents are employed outside of the home or where one is the caretaker and one brings in money from a traditional job.

I very much disaprove of those marriages where the man’s opinion seems to be “Well, I’m at work all day. I shouldn’t have to come home and do dishes and help with the children, too!” I have friends in these types of marriages and both partners seem rather unfulfilled.

However I don’t believe in so called “50/50 parenting,” either. My younger sister and her husband recently had an argument over who “got to go” to the grocery store because neither wanted to stay home with their 1 and 3-year-old. They both feel that if Mom stays home alone with the kids for 6 hours one day, dad should have to put in 6 hours of single parenting time, too. Not only is this really not “equal,” it’s not really all that fair to the kids and is generally very hard to accomplish. I find my sister often feels like she’s being “cheated” out of her personal alone time because of her responsibilities as a mother. And once you add up all the “equal” single parenting time, it’s tough to find quality alone time as a couple.

I don’t know… I think every couple has to find a balance that works for them. This balance may change over time as careers change or as either spouse takes on new responsibilities at work, home, or at church. I recently went back to work PT and my husband now has to get up at 5:00AM to get to work by 7:00 so he can be home by 4:00PM so I can leave for 3 1/2 hours. It’s a sacrifice he’s willing to make so I can get out of the house, maintain my resume, make a little money, and practice my teaching skills. He was also willing to sacrifice by letting me stay home FT for 2 years to care for our son. I’m sure other sacrifices will come for both of us as we each go back to school at some point and as our children get older. The balance will not stay the same and it’s probably a very good thing!

BrianJ–I am glad you are satisfied with your current set up. I would guess that most SAHMs with husbands who can do everything but nurse would also feel satisfied. Unfortunately, there are many husbands who do not. I am not surprised that people feel this is a touchy subject, I guess I am surprised that people would argue that men don’t actually need or want more time with their kids. I would have thought the arguments would be more along the lines of logistics. I agree that sometimes the more absent parent is preferred for comfort, but from my observations, that is the minority. I have no data to quantify the phenomenon. I understand you don’t want to acquiesce, but do you really want to say that more time with your kids is not better?

Scott–absolutely different families work things out in gospel-compatible ways. I have observed among my peers that there are many working husbands who make efforts to parent and a good number who provide and then play. Or just provide. So for me, a FT at home parent is not the gold standard if that means the FT working parent is not genuinely parenting.

Tom Rod–well someone has to blow this horn, right? It has been amply debated in the blogernaccle about Providing vs. nurturing and spheres of influence, etc. etc. For me, I look at this sentence from the Proclamation: “Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live” and financial provisions is such a tiny part of the description of the parent–if that is all the dad gets to do and the mom does everything else, it seems mighty unbalanced. And tell me about protecting. In all my life, the only protection the presider in my home has ever offered is going around and making sure all the doors are locked at night. And I can do that. Is that really what we are talking about?

Paroled–interesting comments. It sounds a bit like your sister’s family is fighting over who gets NOT to parent (for an hour here and there) which really isn’t in keeping with anyone’s vision of happy families, right? Like I said, we did not get into this formally, and we certainly do not count hours and jobs, we just work as a team and it seems to work out. Sounds like you and your husband have that down too.
And I do not endorse the website. Maybe there are better ones out there, I don’t know. I just thought it gave a pretty succinct description of what we do. I agree that there are aspects of it that seem “worldly” but I think the basic intent of spending time with your children cannot be faulted.

BrianJ–great–because we have no data for a direct comparison. I think your point about husbands being involved in various family activities not really having much to do with the amount of time they work is a good one, to a point. You are right that many men can and do spend a lot of time with their kids in addition to fulltime work (although I am worried that many Mormon men become involved in very time-intensive careers BECAUSE they feel their only (or at least main) duty is to provide). And lots don’t. The truth is, the quality of parenting matters more than the model, right? I can be a SAHM and really suck at it. We could have two fulltime working parents who are marvelous parents.

I guess I just feel that American Mormons are kind of in a rut–we think there is this one gold-standard model of parenting. Yet, maybe if you were at the beginning of your family, and you had been exposed to a different way, you could say “hey, I’d love to offer my kids more than a paycheck and piggyback rides, how can I do that?” Obviously, some careers are more adaptable than others. Both my husband and I currently work full time and we have schedules that do not overlap, so this really works for us. If I had had any idea that this kind of a lifestyle existed, I might have done this on purpose–we just got lucky.

I don’t know your situation exactly, but I stand behind my feeling that more time spent with both parents is better than less. Many full-time working fathers could easily have one hour a day with their kids before bedtime (which is not much). If, instead, they could spend three (or more) hours with their kids, I think that is better.

Again–the quality of parent is, I am sure, more important than the model of parenting, I just think that kids gain a great deal more from dad’s presence than his absence.

Wow…anyone else feel just a wee-bit intimidated about making statements about ESP now that you know the big boss is watching?

ESO: I’m trying to figure out how to read you, but since blogging doesn’t allow for inflections, facial expressions, etc. I don’t know whether we’re finding common ground or to take your #9 as a huge slap in my face.

I think it’s probably accurate to say that my main duty as a father is to provide…a certain standard of living. I mean, knowing how to paint nails, make child #2 oatmeal just how she likes it, or soothe child #3 in the middle of the night would all seem a little frivolous (? not quite the word I’m looking for) if we had no home, no heat, no food, no income. That said, I totally agree with you that it is a tragedy that many men take this as their only duty, or trade a very high standard of living for time with their family. This is a strength I see with the ESP movement: it pushes against this “dad works. period.” mentality.

I also agree with you that many Mormons are in a rut in their thinking. They see SAHM as “the gold standard.” I see two problems: 1) all other models are now less-than; 2) as long as I fit the gold standard, I have an ideal marriage. That latter one is especially troubling from my point of view, because that is the justification some men use to not help as much as they can: “We’ve set up the ideal marriage situation so my work here is done.” {if you picture a guy saying this while scratching his belly and raising one eyebrow then it’s more effective.}

On the other hand, in your original post you introduce ESP as the new gold standard. That’s what I have a problem with: your apparent unwillingness to recognize that both ESP and SAHM models are both compatible with the true gold standard, which is love, service, faith…

So what am I seeing as a “slap in the face”? “I’d love to offer my kids more than a paycheck and piggyback rides.” Ouch! Did you mean for that to come across as the summation of all SAHM families?

I’m also having a hard time understanding how having both you and your husband work full-time gives your kids more time with their father. Whether you work or not, he’s still gone the same number of hours. I can see how your kids spend the same number of hours with both of you, but not how they spend more with dad. Maybe you’re implying that by having two breadwinners he is able to take a less time-intensive job and be home more than if he were the sole breadwinner?

Stay-at-home moms are the product of excessive wealth?

Hrm. Seems to me that the disappearance of SAHMhood is linked to the rise of dual-income couples, which raises household wealth and consequently consumer prices, esp. housing.

You are right that many men can and do spend a lot of time with their kids in addition to fulltime work (although I am worried that many Mormon men become involved in very time-intensive careers BECAUSE they feel their only (or at least main) duty is to provide). And lots don’t. The truth is, the quality of parenting matters more than the model, right? I can be a SAHM and really suck at it. We could have two fulltime working parents who are marvelous parents.

For at least two or three decades now, leaders the Church over have been making two points:

1. Extremely time-intensive careers should be avoided.

2. To steal a line from a Mormon ad, it’s about … time. (Not just “quality”, but also quantity.)

I’ve heard this in wards and stakes all over the country. It’s inconceivable to me that so many local leaders in so many geographies across a 20-30 year period could have botched the message so badly. One of most recent instances of this counsel was direct, blunt counsel about taking the “more boring/less paying” position that allows for increased family time over the “more exciting/better paying” position that just increases the bank account (assuming that both positions cover one’s family’s needs, of course).

Paroled–you are right the the sacrifice made here is couple time. We do pretty well on family time, but couple time is our current squeeze. I guess I would rather sacrifice me than the kids (the trade off would be less time for them with their dad). I didn’t really go into specifics with our jobs because I didn’t want to get sidetracked on details, but we mostly work different days; my kids have Mama days and Baba days but see both of us everyday, the difference is who is spending the day with them (and making their lunch). We happen to have jobs that work well in this little system–not every job would. I don’t think there is anything wrong with you working for “personal enjoyment.” When you say this: “I don’t try to pretend I’m offering a better alternative to my child by leaving him alone with his father for 8 hours per week…” I interpret it as you believe I am simply justifying my job by saying it is good for kids to spend time with their dad. I actually do think that 1-on-1 time with dad is extremely important and something many American kids crave. But as for your assertion that I “parent around [my] lifestyle choice”–if you consider ensuring that my family has health insurance a lifestyle choice, I guess I am guilty. You make it sound like I am frolicking at the gym and shopping at Saks while my husband is home with the kids and I just want a lifestyle of “me time.” Believe me, we are humble renters and the shoes I am currently wearing I bought in high school 15 years ago.

BrianJ–no! I never slap! I am NOT trying to set up a new gold standard of parenting, I just think the one we have is a straw man. I like YOUR definition of “love, service, faith…” Ummm…I do think that some fathers subscribe to the paycheck+piggybacks model of fathering, but not you. Maybe I should be more optimistic and say “at least their kids get paychecks and piggyback rides” because heaven knows plenty of kids don’t. And paychecks and piggybacks are important, just not the end of it. I suspect we largely agree that 2 parents earnestly involved with their kids is what we want, right? I’m OK with people doing it different ways, I just wanted to advertise one way that people might not otherwise consider. I probably overstated my case–I usually do. My husband’s job has a funky schedule, so they actually do spend more time with him than they would if he had a 9-5. He often works while they sleep and on different days than I work, so they get more awake time with him than is typical. Not every job would work out that way, but his does. I am not sure either of us is going to be winning major bread anytime soon, but it could go like that. Neither of us needs to worry about getting our billed hours in, or anything.

queuno–I though the last General Conference (or the one before?) handled this very nicely. It will be interesting to me to see when that advice really trickles down to young people making career choices. Certainly, I know some people have already received the message. I would guess, though, that as long as we have a preponderance of spiritual leaders in front of us with time-intensive careers, it will be hard to overcome the dissonance (at least I can never seem to avoid Bishoprics of doctors, lawyers, and accountants [and stake presidencies, for that matter]). If they have always been your mentors, it would be hard to say “aw shucks, I hope we make it on teacher’s pay.” And right on about working–so many SAHMs wouldn’t even WANT to share their kid time with their husbands. I know that.

What a peacemaker….

Depends on the lawyer, of course.

nasamomdele you are right on with this:

“I think that most of what you identify as poor parenting practices can only be examined on the individual level rather than generalized to any group….”

queuno–I though the last General Conference (or the one before?) handled this very nicely. It will be interesting to me to see when that advice really trickles down to young people making career choices. Certainly, I know some people have already received the message. I would guess, though, that as long as we have a preponderance of spiritual leaders in front of us with time-intensive careers, it will be hard to overcome the dissonance (at least I can never seem to avoid Bishoprics of doctors, lawyers, and accountants [and stake presidencies, for that matter]). If they have always been your mentors, it would be hard to say “aw shucks, I hope we make it on teacher’s pay.” And right on about working–so many SAHMs wouldn’t even WANT to share their kid time with their husbands. I know that.

I think some of my point is being missed, and maybe I haven’t elaborated the counsel as eloquently as it was given. Our bishop is a doctor who works “sensible” hours. I know attorneys who have opted for 40-50 hour weeks (no partner track at a big firm). I know plenty of professors who don’t put in 70 hours a week. I know a lot of MBAs who work a 40-50 hour week. I know oodles of people who have started their own companies out of their homes, and while they make work a lot of hours, they’re home. You can be a tax accountant and not sacrifice family time (caveat – we know tax time is crazy).

There’s a “myth” that you have to work a career filled with 100-hour weeks to validate your professional degree. You don’t. Only the ones who haven’t figured it out, do that.

And it’s not just one general conference or stake conference. I first heard the “work fewer hours and be home MORE” counsel when I was 15. Sure, there are a lot of members who work 100 hours a week and seek for the almighty dollar, but this has been generally counter to counsel for at least 20-25 years.

“Stay-at-home-Mom” is a weird expression. Both of my sisters are married moms that do not have paid employment, but they are rarely “staying home”. They are involved in their children’s schooling, communities, sports/arts, and have interests of their own that they sometimes enjoy. Just sayin’.

Dear Men,

Aren’t you jealous that your wives get to play with the kids and volunteer at their schools and you get to spend all day making widgets?

Just Wondering,

ESO

Aren’t you jealous that your wives get to play with the kids and volunteer at their schools and you get to spend all day making widgets?

Yes. Because I’m *awesome* in a classroom. Seriously.

I have deliberately turned down other jobs, so that I can stay with my current company, that allows me liberal use of a “work from home” policy. That’s just awesome, to be able to pretty much be over at the school whenever I’m needed, or to watch my 3yo when my wife needs to run an errand.

The only better thing than my situation at the moment would be to NOT work (cause I work a lot of hours, more than I should, but at least I’m sitting on *my* couch.)

I’m struck how profoundly culturally conservative the Proclamation is.

I’m intrigued by this statement because I actually find the Proclamation on the Family to have very few culture-related elements outside of using the term “marriage.” In fact, I’ve been somewhat troubled by a good portion of the conversation regarding what the Proclamation on the Family really says. I find a lot of people interpret the Proclamation to mean we must all conform to the American 1950s fashion of woman in the kitchen man at the office but I haven’t interpreted the Proclamation that wat at all.

Regarding providing for the family, it says, “Parents have a sacred duty … to provide for their [children's] physical and spiritual needs…” And while this statement is followed up with, “…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.” It also includes the statement: “…fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” It doesn’t say, “Women, don that apron and men, get to work pronto or your temple recommend is forfeit!”

I’ve heard women complain about being “presided over” and being stuck in traditional gender roles but these guidelines don’t say anything about gender roles outside of the responsibilities of mothers and fathers in guiding and caring for their children. I think there is a lot of room to find a balance in your own home that works for you, your spouse, and your children.

I still, however, think it is ideal to have at least one parent home as much as possible to help provide oversight of the home and the happenings there. In my household, it was my dad who was home at 3:30 PM looking after the wellfare of his daughters until my mother made it home from work at 6:00 PM. Was it the model of ESP as outlined in the website previously discussed? I don’t think so. But there was balance and we, the children, were well supported by both our parents.

how is my husband ever going to make us equal for me carrying our child in utero for 40 weeks?

I took the trash and recycling out last night, so I think my wife and I are pretty much even.

Okay, seriously: good point PPP.