OK danithew–at what point do you ACT on it?

Immediately move forward on it. Why wouldn’t you? It would be irresponsible not to in my mind.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this goes. I, personally, would indeed seek employment immediately. I have, though, known many families in this kind of situation where this did not happen–where the woman maintained her stay-at-home-mom status even when the man was unemployed or underemployed for more than a year. It always surprises me, but I thought maybe there was some Standard Mormon Thought (sometimes I miss out on those) that the woman should be home at all costs, that the man IS the provider, regardless of if he can actually provide, etc.

“I think very few women would have the capacity to make as much as their husbands”

This, of course, depends entirely on chosen fields. I see no reason to assume that the male is in a high-earning field and the woman must have selected a poor=paying profession (although I am sure it happens). It has nothing to do with gender. I know lots of women with the professional capacity to out-earn their husbands.

ESO – I didn’t just say “…few women would have the capacity to make as much as their husbands.” I said, “I think very few women would have the capacity to make as much as their husbands assuming they’ve been home taking care of kids for 7 years.” Even if you work in an industry where you could “out earn” your spouse, being out of the game for several years makes it more difficult to (1) get hired and (2) command the salary you had before leaving for the life of a stay-at-home mom.

Answer: yesterday—but that depends on what sort of future prospects my wife and I would have on the job market.

I’d also lean toward “immediately” on all counts, but with significant caveats–what type of severence is the husband receiving? For how long? What kind of savings does the couple have? Do they intend to stay where they are, or are they going to move? If they flip to a she-works-he-stays-home arrangement, will it be permanent or temporary? Are there any benefits that would be lost if she started working, and will her work outearn the lost benefits?

I don’t see any moral reason for the wife not to get a job and start working, but there may be economic or practical reasons why “immediately” shouldn’t be the first thought (especially if there’s a chance they’d be better off living somewhere else).

Immediately, immediately. Of cousre, he is exploring employment as well.

This isn’t so much a thought game for me as an approximation of my situation.

I’m self-employed and work comes and goes. It seems that it is either feast or famine. My wife is a highly trained professional who works part time. We are able to adjust her hours up when things are lean on my side.

I work at home and spend a lot of time with the kids. I love them but being a full time caregiver would probably drive me insane. If someone is in the situation you describe the husband is going to have to be able to adapt to the role of caregiver. Some men are better at this than others. This can be stressful and change the dynamic of the marriage, but it is better than going broke.

This is a long way of agreeing with everyone else here that mom should get a job ASAP.

BrianJ–smart

Devyn–those are precisely the kinds of reasons I was looking for; I DO think these families’ prayers are probably riddled with “I’m doing what I SHOULD be doing now bless us please” kind of pleas

Sam B–yup yup–lots of caveats. I guess I am assuming there is no intention to move, which is certainly a big one. I can understand if people wouldn’t say immediately if they have, for example, nice severence, significant savings, ample food storage, paid off mortgage and cars, etc.

Paroled–I get it–there ARE lots of families in the situation you describe (perhaps I know an inordinate number of well-educated woman yoked with less formally-educated men?) (and, in many cases, shame on them for being so short-sighted). To me, the situation is not necessarily affected by out-earners. If one spouses’ income is zero, any job out-earns that, right? I guess I feel like most families can share retail jobs (generally amply available) and be better off (not necessarily financially, but spiritually) than collecting unemployment, borrowing from family, etc.

makakona–sure–wanting to make it a short-term arrangement seems fair.

“I feel like most families can share retail jobs (generally amply available) and be better off (not necessarily financially, but spiritually) than collecting unemployment, borrowing from family, etc.”

I don’t disagree with you on this point. I look at several of the young married students in our ward and wonder why they’re collecting money from the state when the wives could be working 10 or 15 hours a week to lessen some of the financial burden on their families. I’ve never been comfortable with the concept of getting something for nothing (even if you “intend” on paying it back through future taxes) and was raised to work hard to meet my material needs. I work PT so we don’t spend as much on childcare and have a friend watch my son. I don’t clear a lot of cash but I’m still contributing to the financial wellfare of our family. Is it easy? Not always (especially now, in my last trimester of pregnancy). But we have future goals and want to care for our family as a team. To me, an equitable marriage is one where one partner picks up the slack for the other whenever and wherever possible with both working their best to meet all of their family’s needs. Just because a “woman’s place is in the home” does not relieve her of helping her family meet its financial needs (not wants, mind you). Just as much as a man is not relieved of helping around the house because he goes to the office and earns money.

Propabably… But it still pertains here. :)

Devyn wrote:

1. They have been told numerous times by GAs (and silly Primary songs)and the Proclamation On The Family that the role of the father is to provide and mother to stay at home
2. They have been told to hold to this structure and they will be blessed
3. To ignore these teachings puts them on the road to apostasy (see DKLs recent post)

All of which would make more sense if the Proclamation actually, you know, said that. Instead, it says:

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. 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.

I’m not disputing that there are Mormon wives whose steel-trap minds clamp shut on any thought other than, “I can’t work — I’m a woman!” But they certainly can’t base their all-or-nothing philosophy on the Proclamation without taking a step back and squinting until it says what they assume it says.

TOTaLN,

I read that even more liberally than most. I read, “fathers are… responsible to provide the necessities of life” as using the word “responsible” very carefully. It doesn’t mean that they have to provide directly. If it meant that they could have dropped the word responsible. To me it means that fathers are responsible to make sure that their families are provided for. In some cases this might mean deciding as partners that it is time for the wife to work so that the family is provided for.

I guess that I am in a somewhat similar circumstance as the hypothetical situation. I am a mom with three little ones (preschool age and younger) and I work to support the family. A few years ago my husband started a graduate program so in the mean time I have been supporting the family. I was lucky enough to find a position at a company that allows me to telecommute and have a very, very flexible schedule. (As such, it is probably obvious that I would agree with most that the wife should work as soon as she can arrange to find a position.)

My personal experiences are that while a few people in my ward think that what I do is fine, many (especially women) think that I am bordering on apostate since somehow they have decided that I am not making raising my family my focus. (Which I might add is not the case; it would be easier to work a regular 9 to 5 job than to work late nights like I do in order to be with my kids during the day.) Just last Sunday a women offered me unsolicited advice that I should quit my job and take out loans since my husband doesn’t have than much time left and it would be better if I could be there for my kids. (We have been able to avoid taking on any loans because of my work.) The company I work for hires people to work from home regularly and since I am involved in the management I have some say in those that are hired, but almost no one has expressed any interest despite the fact that many regular complain that they don’t have enough to make it to the end of the month or have difficulties getting their loans to stretch as far as they need them to. When I have asked them if they are interested most have said that they simply couldn’t work or that their husband’s ego would be bruised if they were to support the family (most of these husbands are students).

a working mom – I find it sad that you would face such norrow minded women in your ward but I know you’re not alone. I think women working outside the home can be very beneficial for lots of reasons. And if you’ve found a position that’s flexible enough to let you work from home, that’s even better!

I think supporting your husband while he’s in graduate school is a great thing for you and your family. How nice that you won’t have mountains of loans to pay off when he graduates! The church has warned against unnecessary debt and it sounds like you’re working (metaphorically and physically) to avoid such debt

Interestingly enough, when I was an undergraduate student attending a student ward, we had a RS lesson on education. Even in the environment of students, the prevailing thought on why we (meaning women) should get an education was only to support ourselves if our husbands died (most were still single but hoping for their “MRS” before graduation). The RS President was a grad student and she was agreeing with this theory! I was shocked and it was one of the last Sundays I attended as a student. I’m hoping to eventually get my PhD when my kids are a little older but not because I’m afriad my husband may not be able to support me at some point. I value education for the sake of education and have some career goals of my own. Right now they’re on hold until I finish having children and until my children are at least in school but why not have some abition outside the home? I feel like telling some of these ninny women, “Someday your children will grow up and won’t need you in their lives every day. What will you do with your time then?” Hhmmm… Probably not consider getting a job!

OOPS! I meant to write: Those receiving aid don’t even have to be members of the church (a fact few people know).

It’s actually a fact I think more people NEED!

Working Mom–kudos for avoiding debt–sounds like you’ve got a great gig.

DKL–interesting question. From my experience (done the food order side of things), bishops really don’t bring down the hammer on anyone. I suspect it is very rare to be denied food assistance from the Church if you ask. But I wonder about something like counseling a family; might a bishop offer an objective “I know the local grocery store is hiring, might either of you be interested in a shift?”

MAC–thanks for sharing your experience. I hope no one would read it and conclude that women who choose to work are throwing away time with their kids. Personally, I work for health insurance. I would love to spend more time with my kids, but I think insurance is vital and since I am able to provide it, I feel that is the most appropriate route, rather than relying on S-CHIP.

I suspect your mom was making those choices at a time when the SAHM-mantra was even greater than it is now, and it sounds like your dad was working. I am specifically wondering about situations in which dad is NOT working (and could provide childcare).

I already mentioned one situation I know of in which a woman with a high-demand skills-set choose NOT to work even though her kids are in high school and her husband has spent significant portions of the last few years working on contracts out-of-state. It doesn’t seem ideal for family togetherness (but there are some other issues with that particular family).

Anyway, I know LOTS of families with SAHMs who use WIC, unemployment, S-CHIP, subsidized housing, etc. It just seems like there are other options, even if they are just temporary.

I suspect your mom was making those choices at a time when the SAHM-mantra was even greater than it is now, and it sounds like your dad was working.

Again, my mother was raised in a home where her father was not contributing to the family finances in any significant way for long periods of time, she had a very strong example of her alternatives. In her case (an I suspect many others) the choice to be a SAHM was not due to external pressures but to an internal desire.

In any case, your scenario tends to suggest that the external pressure being resisted by this woman (she inspired a ‘when is she going to get her butt in gear’ blog post after all) is for her to go to work, not to stay at home.

I am specifically wondering about situations in which dad is NOT working (and could provide childcare).

Saying that my husband can watch the kids, they aren’t in daycare, doesn’t solve the problem if the wife wants to be around her kids. If the wife is more fulfilled or happier as a SAHM, than working for the man, why wouldn’t she hesitate to give up that opportunity for economic reasons?

Let me put it another way. My wife is a stay at home mom and has many more choices about what she does each day. She can choose to take a long bath, paint the bathroom, shop for and prepare a special dinner, take a class or go jogging, take the kids out of school and spend a day exploring. Meanwhile, I get to go to a soul-sucking, physically and emotionally expensive, grind of a job (some days anyway). If I were only considered my needs, I would trade with her in a second. I would have a blast as a SAHD. And while I am perfectly capable of caring for my children’s physical needs and running a household, I could not mother as well as my wife does day-to-day.

I am not saying that there is not bottom threshold of need at which point the economics trump all else. But it is not simply a one-for-one parent swap, for some it means that mom can’t be the mom she had wanted to be.

I like MAC’s points in 33 and 36. But I think this statement paints a bit of a different picture between his situation and the one ESO has been describing:

My wife, who has more advanced degrees than I do, stopped working when the kids came and has yet to go back to work. Though we have not had any financial hardship in our marriage, if she was to work it would not be out of need (knock on wood, no-jinxies).

That’s they key – no financial hardship. While it’s working for you to perhaps make less money with you working and your wife at home, it’s a bit different when you get down to the level of people struggling to make ends meet…

Let me clarify my own 39 (it looks different submitted than drafted), as I misread part of DKL’s question: I don’t know of bishops that make employment by a sister as a prequalifying condition to receive assistance. They typically encourage sisters to step into the breadwinner role if possible to make up for a spouse’s inability to find a job. The goal is for the family to take care of their own needs without having to rely on Church assistance.

We often forget the mantra, that the welfare program is to “sustain life, not a lifestyle”. I think SAHMhood is a lifestyle choice.

And sure, families in financial need don’t need to have a spouse look for work, reduce costs, disconnect unnecessary “utilities”, etc. They also don’t need assistance from the Church.

And I am thinking in my head about someone I know who lives in an area of the country he can’t afford “because family lives here”, in a house he can’t afford, who hasn’t worked since October, whose wife is a devoted SAHM and won’t work. And I know he’s getting church assistance. I’m not a judge over this. But as a casual observer, I’m not sure that the $3000/month he’s pulling in from church subsidies couldn’t be replaced with his wife getting a job (and maybe he should move to a part of the country where housing is half the cost and there is work aplenty).

(Sorry, I’m not a judge. Just thinking of an example. I’m also not sure what counsel I’d give a family member whose wife is working on her residency, while he is a SAHD admitted to the bar in 3 states. Probably to keep on keeping on until her loans are paid off…)

A more difficult question — a similar-yet-different thought game — comes down to financing missions. Are we going to tell a prospective missionary that they can’t go because they don’t have enough money, and the family won’t have a spouse take a job to help pay for it? At what point do our life-vs-lifestyle priorities impact missionary service, which is pretty much expected for young men. Does it change if we’re talking about sisters?

a random John – “Of course most members read it as if this word [responsible] was either not there or meaningless, so you are in good company.”

Should I be insulted? I’ll move on without taking offense that my thinking is just like all the other members… :)

I wasn’t trying to ignore the responsible part of the statement. I just don’t think the Proclamation is quite as limiting as some are inclined to believe. I agreed with your comment in #26 though I think the caveat of “as partners” is also very important. I believe couples should try their best to work together for the good of their families regardless of how that has to happen. Work, money, raising the kids- there should be some consultation by both partners on how to make that all happen. I know from experience that just expecting your spouse to pick up the slack in your marriage- regardless of the area- without talking about it can cause big problems!