Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- From: rich hammett <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:52:51 -0000
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Colleen Kay Porter:
But let's be clear that MOST PEOPLE are not at "decision-making" levels of
society. So just following Hirshman's advice to have only one child and
continue working fulltime does not guarantee that a woman will rise to a
"decision-making" level.
Of course not. But by staying out entirely, it is assured that women
will NEVER be represented. I'm not talking about individuals, I'm
talking about an entire class of people who are unrepresented. Why
do you think that cars are much more fatal for women to drive than
for men? they are designed to be safe for the man of average height.
And that sort of pernicious discrimination permeates our entire
society. where is the church on those issues?
I also argue whether the unpaid work of a ward relief society president
really does matter so much less than the work of a CEO. The CEO may affect
more people overall, but the RS prez has an opportunity to make a huge
difference for good in the lives of the people she serves. If I had the
choice, I would rather be a ward RS president. And Hirshman would tell me
that I am wrong.
As I made clear in my post, I'm not defending Hirshman's proposed
solution.
However, what if your choice was to be general relief society president,
or president of the LDS church?
[...] But for people who
see that problem, what is a better solution?
I think there is a huge potential to restructure much of the USAmerican
workforce to allow meaningful part-time work for parents. Or grandparents,
or caregivers of elderly relatives, or whatever. By contrast, Hirshman
insists that full-time work is the only thing that matters.
And why isn't the Church pushing for those kinds of social
changes? I mean, instead of dragging daddies out of the
home for even more hours every week? The Church has
substantial economic power in Utah, which would make a
nice laboratory. That would save the family a million
times better than attacking gay marriage.
I was considering going to law school last year, and met with
several prominent LDS lawyers around Washington, DC, to discuss
my choices. Two of them, in particular, had large families,
were serving or had served as Stake Presidents and Bishops,
and both worked 60-80 hours every week in their profession.
Although I liked both men a great deal, it was their example
that kept me out of law school. Although they could have
chosen to spend less time at work, they didn't. I think
that's probably a worse way to set an example for kids
than, say, to drink a case of coffee every day, or to
write a letter to the editor supporting gay marriage. but
the church will fire you for the latter.
People act with the unspoken assumption that this "daddy leaves
the home every day" is the age-old pattern, but it's not, and
the daddy's increasing absence even from what are considered
"good" homes (nearly every LDS father I know in several upper-
middle-class wards works 50+ hours/week) is a far bigger
danger that the Church doesn't see fit to address at all.
I can't agree that is true. There have been like a zillion general
conference talks about the importance of putting family first.
And yet, in practice, we return to the same pattern.
[...] Church keeps Bishops, who are already working
long hours away from their families, away from them for
a couple of dozen more hours every week. Why?
Perhaps because they need good men to serve as bishops? Shouldn't we have
our best there?
Rich, have you ever been a bishop? If not, what is your problem? The
reality is that many families of bishops find that the abundant blessings
that come with the calling more than make up for the lost hours. This is
something that is difficult to explain rationally, because it is a matter of
faith, not logic. But it is nonetheless real in their lives.
What kind of blessings? I've seen it take families apart. I never hear
of "blessings" except with this same kind of generic vagueness. What
would make up, for me, lost hours with my children? Nothing. And
certainly not this pablum the leadership manuals offer up about
"your children seeing you magnify your calling." I'd rather my
children see me magnify my more important calling. In practice,
the church does not treat it as the more important calling.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
.
- References:
- Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- From: Colleen Kay Porter
- Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- Prev by Date: Re: Saved
- Next by Date: When the Prophet Quotes from the Bible
- Previous by thread: Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- Next by thread: Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
