My hopes went up when Elaine Dalton started talking in Conference earlier this month--a woman was actually going to address the men!--but they went steadily down as she continued speaking. It was a fine talk, but nothing special, and nothing everyone hasn't heard approximately eight billion times.
I wish people in the church would occasionally expand the "good fathers" talk beyond the importance of virtue, providing for the family, and not looking at porn. There's so much more to being a good dad, and frankly, those three things are kind of basic for Mormons. If you're LDS, you know about the priesthood and being righteous--but being righteous does not necessarily make you a good dad.
How about discussing the fact that a father can do just as much nurturing as a mother, not just providing and "protecting"? How about mentioning that a father needs to be more than just a provider, or a disciplinarian? How about letting fathers know that loving their children's mother means working with her, doing their share of housework and raising the kids--not just saying the words and giving her flowers three times a year? How about discussing the attitude a father can have toward his daughters; how the way he treats them influences the way his daughters will relate to men, the way his sons will relate to women, for the rest of their lives?
These things, unlike "be virtuous and worthy priesthood holders," are not always common knowledge. They are not constantly discussed at church. They could stand to be mentioned every now and then--and the other topics could stand to be let up on occasionally. (Don't you feel like people start tuning out when they realize a speaker is just repeating things everyone's heard before?)
Besides which, I believe that trying hard is vastly more important than always being "worthy." In fact, it's impossible to always BE worthy. You can be a good father without having a current temple recommend, and you can have a current temple recommend without being a particularly good dad. There are non-priesthood-holders who are much better dads than some priesthood holders.
In the case of the "good father" talk, I think we should be emphasizing those secular aspects rather than going on about virtue, etc. The virtue thing comes up basically everywhere in the church, and these are issues that don't get touched on as much. Being a good dad is much more about these other things than it is about the priesthood, and it's a fantastic topic that deserves to be actually addressed, instead of just a disguise for the same old virtue-and-purity talk. All I'm saying is, if you're going to talk about being a good father--then do, talk about it. Is that too much to ask?
I didn't hear that talk, but I agree with what you have written 100%. 100%. Almost every talk on fatherhood is the same. I would love to hear something more along the lines of what you've mentioned. My final paper in my Gender Studiens class was the effect parents can have on disorderd eating and distorted body image. Mothers are told often how what they say about themselves may affect their daughters, but not many fathers know about the affect they have on their daughter's body image.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with all you said about the things that make a good Dad, especially the part about holding a temple recommend does not always mean dads are good.
ReplyDeleteI disagree however with your overall criticism of Sister Dalton, I thought her talk was fantastic and feel like the gospel is mostly about repetition. I know I need to hear things consistently in order to improve myself, I forget A LOT!
I think the things you mentioned would have been an excellent addition to an already fantastic talk.
clap clap clap clap. That is my applause at your thoughts here! So true so true. I love the line, If you are going to talk about being a good father -- then do, talk about it.
ReplyDeleteI see so many men that are such good fathers everyday in my neighborhood and at my kids schools and soccer games and NONE of these men are priesthood holders. I think you are so correct.
You know, I definitely heard this talk differently! I loved this talk when it was given, and I just reread it to see if I was just in a really good mood that day, but I still loved it. To me, it actually seemed very specific about how fathers should be more involved in nurturing their children. She talked about being active and present in your daughter's life - sitting down and talking with her, getting to know her boyfriends, checking out what she's listening to, talking to her about her dreams and her goals and encouraging her to get an education. I don't disagree with you that there are some fathers without the priesthood who are better fathers than some priesthood holders - but it seemed to me like her intent was to let priesthood holders know that they SHOULD be the best darn fathers in the world BECAUSE they hold the priesthood.
ReplyDeleteAlso, right now I live in an area where there are a LOT of less involved (or just not there) fathers, and new people being baptized almost every week who really want their families' lives to be better. To them, it's something new, not something they've heard a billion times - and having a father who keeps the commandments (rather than drinking or going to the many strip clubs around here or just not being there at all) would be a huge blessing to them (and to their daughters, who get pregnant in high school so often that Eric's school has a daycare.)
And I'm sorry that this comment is a million years long. :)
Megan and Jennie, I'm not saying the talk was bad or that she shouldn't have said any of the things that she did; just that, as a talk on what makes a good father, I thought it was lacking. There was so much more that could have been said, but wasn't--and never really is.
ReplyDeleteI do think the emphasis on virtue and the priesthood was unnecessary, since, like I said, it's something that comes up everywhere. (See the examples I give in the next paragraph.) In reference to the kinds of fathers you were talking about, Megan, I think that local leaders need to play a big role there; General Conference is for everyone, and needs to be valuable to the old hands too, you know? Of course it's good for them to address those issues sometimes, but not exclusively, and I think there's a significant segment of Church membership that gets shortchanged when General Conference addresses only the fundamentals.
Here's my real point: In the October session, there were two talks on worthiness, four talks on repentance, and seven talks on the priesthood. If you look at the page that shows all the different topics (http://lds.org/general-conference/topics/2011/10?lang=eng), Elaine Dalton's talk is not listed under "fatherhood" or "parenthood," but is under "priesthood." To me that makes kind of an obvious statement about what the emphasis was supposed to be.
Miri,
ReplyDeleteI think your point is both important and well articulated.
I have thought a lot about this and other similar issues with church in the last decade and found myself unable to discuss them with very many people until lately. I think you are strong for being willing to brave the criticism of others, which you will invariably provoke by any measure of dissent, however benign or helpful.
Ugh, I know, Linds. (And thank you!) But at the risk of sounding too self-deprecating, it really isn't about me being strong. In fact criticism is incredibly hard for me to take, but I do this stuff anyway because I literally just can't help doing it. The situation gets kind of nasty sometimes. :)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, yes, I know exactly what you mean. Luckily there are a few people in my life--primarily the ones who commented already--who I can trust to not freak out on me pretty much no matter what I say, and that makes it much easier to deal with the ones who aren't so reasonable.
I agree! I think a lot of people think that by talking about the Virtue and Protection/providing aspects that all the other things are just taken in and known about automatically. But... some of us are not so good at reading between the lines, so I think it would be fabulous to actually put it out there. Maybe you'll be the next Sister Dalton :)
ReplyDeleteHaha, not likely! Not at all likely. :) And I think you are exactly right. Sometimes people need just a little bit more than "be good people and you'll be good parents." :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, I remember getting a lot of crap from relatives when my husband was a stay at home dad to our baby and I was working full time and attending grad school. As if work and grad school wasn't enough stress on its own, but to have family imply that I'm being a bad mother for working and that my husband was "lazy" because he stayed at home with the baby was ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI remember telling them, "Funny, I wouldn't be considered LAZY if I was at home with the kid and he was doing what I'm doing." But they couldn't see the hypocrisy of what they were saying.
It's sexist I tellz ya. Sexist!
I just don't see why it matters which parent is at home with the kids. I understand all kinds of arguments for not sticking your kid in day care all day every day, and I fully agree with those. But how condescending and unfair to say that there's anything wrong with the dad being at home and the mom working. I think it's time to stop pretending that only moms are capable of nurturing and emotionally connecting with their children. It's not true.
ReplyDelete(Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am also not saying that mom SHOULDN'T do those things, or that dad is better at it. I am saying that both parents are equally responsible for and capable of raising their children in the best way possible.)
Miri, and everyone is different. My husband for instance enjoys cooking and is our master chef at home. I think it's funny that while some of the world's most successful chefs are men, there is this stigma that a woman's place is in the kitchen. Even if she doesn't want to be there (*cough* me).
ReplyDeleteA lady in a former ward told me that a friend gave her boys a kitchen set, but the dad was so furious about it because he didn't want a "girly toy" for his sons, so he made the mom give it away to someone else.
I mean, seriously?
Blech, that reallly makes me want to yell at people. It's so infuriating.
ReplyDeleteI always cringe when they start talking about how fathers should "interview" their kids. Is that really a good semantic choice? I know if my dad was all, "Lauren, let's have an interview" I'd be rolling my eyes way before I actually said anything.
ReplyDeleteI thought the talk was alright, but I was similarly critical. Also, I gag whenever I hear the word virtue.
I hate the interview thing, Lauren! Always have. My dad definitely did not "interview" us and it would not have been an eye-rolling-free experience if he had. :)
ReplyDeleteActually this brings up another of my beefs with the Mormon idea of fatherhood, which is that I think all the emphasis on patriarchy distances a father from his family, especially his children. The interviewing thing is the worst--one of the most formal (and often uncomfortable) social settings and we want to place fathers and their children in it? Why? When you look at the language of these talks, they often talk about a father's relationship with his children using the same words as when they talk about a bishop's relationship with his congregation, and I don't care much for that. It's almost like they're trying to make the family a Church program, instead of something that exists independent of the Church (which it absolutely does).
This is what I meant about all "good father" talks being more about the priesthood than actual fatherhood. I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you that, to be perfectly honest, I don't think the priesthood is all that important in this particular relationship. The most important things a father can and should do don't stem from it. And actually I think focusing so much on the priesthood emphasizes that distance, especially father-daughter. (I know immediately that two of my lovely friends are going to disagree with that because they have fantastic relationships with their fathers, who probably did all this kind of stuff when they were younger--but frankly, I happen to think they were just very lucky in their dads. :) )
I thought her talk was wonderful. Why should we have to read between the lines? We all need repetition to learn and remember things.
ReplyDeleteAnd my bishop is a stay at home dad. He cooks all the meals and nurtures the children while his wife works. He was even PTA president. So not all "Mormons" have to fit into a square. I don't know of one person who doesn't think he's a fantastic person and bishop.
Just my two cents.
That's really great that your bishop is so far outside the mold and isn't criticized for it! If the church is making progress like that in some places, I am really happy. I wonder, though, whether he might not still feel marginalized sometimes by the utter lack of recognition in the church for stay-at-home dads and working moms as GOOD choices. I'd be pleasantly surprised if he didn't. This article, written by an LDS stay-at-home dad, talks about that marginalization. It's not just about whether or not he's criticized for what he does, it's about how his position is simply not recognized, not considered. Although now that I think about it, since he is the bishop he probably doesn't have too much trouble with people forgetting about him. So he might not be the best example. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need repetition to learn things, but that doesn't mean all we need is repetition. We need new information too, and we need to not use the "repetition" excuse every time someone points out that a speaker did an inadequate job of addressing a topic. (Obviously that's my own opinion, since many people thought Dalton's talk more than adequate.) But there's more to the issue than just how good repetition can be--we're talking about fatherhood, a seriously basic concept, and the fact that nothing is ever said about it beyond how it relates to the priesthood. That is inadequate. That's a huge oversight, not one to be explained away by the necessity of repetition.
What are you referring to when you ask why we should read between the lines? Something in my original post, or in one of the comments?