Question: What are ‘things that can be hidden, but not for
long’?
You know, on this Election Day, I am tempted to climb on my
soapbox again. Actually, the temptation part of it is in the rear view mirror. I will climb on my soapbox.
Sure, I considered posting an art update or a comical
anecdote resulting from the crazies that I live with. I mean, it sure takes
away the fun when your 9th grader gets all upset and "offended" (her
words) when you play this sound effect while helping her with her Algebra.
But of course, I’m veering off topic. Back to the
soapbox.
Political strife has always existed. The difference between
the arguments we have with each other with political strife today verses
arguments in a historical context are the sources of the information received and
how often. The information of yore was also slower to travel. We had to wait
until a newspaper was on our front stoop or until the 6 o’clock news for us to
form our opinions on the new information. Sure, misinformation and bias also came
with these sources, but it was still slower and further limited.
But now? Information comes at us from all directions and all
hours of the day. And consistent with history, some of the sources are factual.
Some of the sources contain some facts, but are slanted. Some of them are
outright lies but painted to appear true. And yes, many of us fall for the
misinformation. (A particular news network comes to mind, but I’m trying my
best to keep this post politically neutral.)
Not only are we flooded with information, but these days we’re
also able to instantly comment and share our thoughts with others. Just as
quick as the information itself can spread exponentially in an upward
trajectory, so can our thoughts and opinions on the source information
itself.
We live in a wonderful age where we won’t be kept in the
dark for long (unless we choose to be by just watching Keeping Up With the
Kardashians or Snooki and Jwoww…there’s no helping those people).
But with these modern perks of 24/7 Information also comes
the downside. This is also a way for misinformation
to spread just as rapidly. And when our opinions are being shared, it’s a crazy
game of “telephone”. Who knows what facts remain from the original story after
your sister’s cousin’s nail tech’s astrologer received the information and
opinions that come with it!
One particular example hit this week pertaining to a speech
President Obama gave at Rhode Island College in Providence.
Apparently, an article pertaining to this speech went
viral with the headline:
If you already don’t like the President and/or you’re a Stay At
Home Mom or you’re supportive of those who choose to be SAHMs, wouldn’t that
headline generate a little, um, ire?
Yeah, that’s what happened.
My Facebook news-feed had five
different examples (last I counted) of those who are SAHMs (or supportive of
those who are) who already don’t like the President that linked the above
article with added comments of discontent. Some claimed to be just plain
sick over the words that the President said in his speech.
Now many around here in this part of the country and in my faith do not like President
Obama. That is not front page news. However, where I get all worked up into a tizzy is when
the reason someone has a position on
a candidate (no matter the party) or issue happens to be based on a lie. This even applies
for those who have positive opinions
on a candidate, constituent or issue. Did you vote in that direction based on truth
or what someone wanted you to believe? Did you do your homework?
I include myself with those questions.
With President Obama, if someone doesn’t like him because of
how he voted on a policy, fine. Fair enough. If they don’t like him because
they disagree with his politics in general, fine.
What crawls under my skin is when it’s when words or an issue (or
event…take your pick) is slanted a certain way to cater to those that already
have a problem with him in order to rile up his critics and cynics even further.
That’s precisely what happened here.
I love the remarks from blogger Alice Carey on this very issue. She makes the point better than I have, and it is true that I’ve
already rambled enough.
Take it, Alice:
A short video clip of President Obama has recently gone viral. In it, he
states, “And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home
with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her
life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Those sharing this video, many of whom are members of the LDS church, have used
it to claim that President Obama is “attacking” stay-at-home mothers. As a
stay-at-home mother myself, I decided that I should investigate. After all, the
choice to stay home and care for my children is a significant part of my
identity, and I truly believe it is the best thing for my family at this time.
Furthermore, we’ve been counseled by our church leaders that “The most
important of the Lord’s work you and I will ever do will be within the walls of
our own homes” (Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places, Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book Co., 1974, p. 255). And that “Mothers are primarily responsible for the
nurture of their children” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Salt Lake
City, 1995).
I’d like to share with you what I found.
I began my investigation by reading the full text of the speech in question.
It can be found here if you’re interested: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/31/remarks-president-women-and-economy-providence-ri.
In case you don’t have time to read that speech, let me summarize and clarify
some points for you. While the words in the video do come from the mouth of our
President, they come at the end of this paragraph: “And too often, parents have
no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn’t have the
kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s
development. And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best
programs may be too far away. And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves
the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower
wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we
want Americans to make.”
What our President is saying is that he does not want American families to be
forced to choose to have a stay-at-home parent because they have no other
options. This is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree!
Not all women want to or are able to be stay-at-home mothers, which,
incidentally, is acknowledged and respected by the LDS Church.
Here’s Elder M. Russell Ballard on the subject:
"There is no one perfect way to be a good mother. Each
situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills and
abilities, and certainly different children. The choice is different and unique
for each mother and each family. Many are able to be “full-time moms,” at least
during the most formative years of their children’s lives, and many others
would like to be. Some may have to work part-or full-time; some may work at
home; some may divide their lives into periods of home and family and work.
What matters is that a mother loves her children deeply and, in keeping with
the devotion she has for God and her husband, prioritizes them above all
else." (“Daughters of God,” Ensign, May 2008, 108–10)
Personally, I have been a mom who works full-time outside of the home, a mom
who works from home, a mom who works part-time outside of the home, and, most
recently, a full-time stay-at-home mom. I’m blessed and grateful that I have
had the option to make all of these choices about balancing my family and my
career based on my circumstances. Not all Americans are able to make these
choices.
President Obama would like to help parents living in every part of the country
go to work if they so choose by improving policies on family leave, maternity
leave, quality early childhood education, and pay for women. All of these were
points that he made in the same speech where he supposedly attacked
stay-at-home parents. That alleged attack was not the point of the speech, and
it should not be the take-away.
In order to better understand President Obama’s perspective on this issue,
let’s look at some information about stay-at-home moms. As of 2012, 68%
of stay-at-home mothers fit into the “traditional” picture of a married woman
with a working husband. 20% of stay-at-home mothers are single parents, 5% are
cohabiting, and 7% are married to husbands who are also not working. It stands
to reason that some of these mothers are not actively choosing to stay at home,
rather than working outside the home. In fact, while 85% of married
stay-at-home mothers with working husbands say that caring for their family is
their primary reason for not working outside the home, only 41% of single
stay-at-home mothers and 64% of cohabiting stay-at-home mothers said the same.
[1] Perhaps they would be working outside the home if they had access to
quality childcare or could be paid for time off to care for a newborn or sick
child.
Additionally, our President is correct when he states that a woman’s wages are
affected by the choice to take time off to stay home. According to
research, mothers are subject to a “motherhood penalty” in the form of earning
lower salaries than their childless counterparts, especially if their
employment is interrupted by time off caring for their families, leading to
fewer years of experience. [2] If paid leave was offered and quality
childcare was available, women who choose to work outside the home may not need
to take this time off, so they may not face as large a decrease in pay.
As members of the LDS church, many of us choose to stay home and care for
our families. President Obama does not want to take this away from us, but we
who make this choice are in the minority. 80% of American children are being
raised by parents who work outside the home, and President Obama would like to
use policy to strengthen our communities by alleviating parents of the choice
between working and doing what’s best for their children. For that, I commend
him.
Thank you, Alice!
Those may criticize me (and Alice) because the source of her words came from a “Liberal Mormon”. Fine. Fair enough. For some, “Liberal” is a bad word. I feel
that’s an unfortunate way to look at that particular L-word, but it is their
right to feel that way.
Sure, I’m more left leaning than most of the Western United
States LDS Demographic. But my own political identity doesn’t change the facts of the President's actual speech in Rhode Island verses the position the slanted article attempted to accomplish with its choice of words and video
snippet.
As one of my more conservative friends said after I tried to clear up the
misconceptions made in the slanted version that was posted, “I really feel that the reason we are all so defensive
about the initial article that the media put up is because there is such an
attack on the family. I know you would agree. I am not a fan of Obama but I do
feel it unfair for the media to portray his message the way they did.”
I agree. It is unfair. But it’s
unfortunately the reality of the media and whatever agenda that particular news
agency or reporter has when they put out a story. And if my blog is any
indication, any bozo can publish something on the internet. It’s up to us to
investigate and find the actual truth (or do the best we can to discover the
truth. Sometimes the truth is buried under layers of twists, slants and plain
lies) before we make up our mind.
The bottom line is, it would
certainly be nice that if people aren't going to like something, it should be
for a truthful reason. I know, keep your laughter to yourself. It would also be nice
if teachers were paid fairly and stress burned calories too, right? I know.
This is especially true with how
my LDS faith is attacked. If you (general you) do not like my faith, I hope
it's because you don't believe what I believe and/or disagree with doctrinal
aspects of my faith. That makes sense. What drives me batty is when my faith is attacked with slanted information (with some sprinkles of truth to add to the confusion) and those are the lies that are believed and further perpetuated by the aggressors.
And to end with an attempt at the actual truth, the below quote is also credited to Confucius. I do not know who actually said it, but I love the message expressed in those words. I certainly find them true.