This line from the Proclamation on the Family is an often overlooked part of the meaning behind the document.
My friend Derek recently posted on Feminist Mormon Housewives about expectations in our culture as far as gender roles and providing for the family.
As I was reading the comments on the post and thinking about other perspectives I've read about regarding gender roles in the church, I was thinking about how the church focuses on the father as the breadwinner, and mother as primary caregiver for children NOT necessarily because that is the best for everyone, but because generally, it works for people. I've read about people who feel hurt because in their experiences it has been implied that this traditional division of duties is the "Ideal" (and of course if you HAVE to do something else, that's okay, because of the short disclaimer in the Proclamation on the Family, but it's not the "ideal").
So a thought popped into my head, that what if it isn't about ideal vs. non-ideal? What if we teach roles the way we do because it's what GENERALLY works, but that the IDEAL for anyone is what they, as a couple have prayerfully decided works best for their family. We're all entitled to personal revelation for our own families, and I think if we can get away from the idea that there is one ideal, and the rest are less-worthy fall back positions, it will make life much less stressful for many people who find that the traditional roles are not ideal in meeting the needs of their family.