I recently remembered two items that share a similar response to the titular question. The answer? Not me.
Martha Hughes Cannon is a wonderful and fascinating character in history. She was a doctor, educated at the University of Michigan. She was a State Senator (D), defeating her own husband who ran on the Republican ticket and became the first woman to hold the office in the United States. She was a mother.
For twenty years, Cannon corresponded regularly with Barbara Replogle, a non-Mormon friend from the National School of Elocution and Oratory in Philadelphia. Her letters reveal the complexity born of polygamy, responsibility and federal prosecution. In one such letter, she encouraged Barbara to get married and expounded on motherhood:
When are you going to wed? After all, this to my mind, is the true state of womanhood neither, if properly managed should it interfere with her true advancement, in whatever sphere she might cast her talents. Tis not the bringing of noble spirits into the world — to me, a mother is woman’s brightest glory — that dwarfs talent, and retards her intellectual advancement but it is the multiplicity of household drudgery which only belongs to servants — and the conformity to the vile customs of modern society.
Barbara, even if we have to be poor let us not waste our talents in the cauldron of modern nothingness — but strive to become women of intellect, and endeavor to do some little good, while we live this protracted gleam called life. 
In the diaries of this time, references to servants are quite common. In the early 20th century, the Relief Society established an employment bureau to help women and young girls to find employment, often as domestic helpers.
Thirteen years before this letter was written, Church President Brigham Young was revitalizing Mormonism’s communitarian experiments: the Order of Enoch (“United Order” was a euphemism from the early published versions of the revelations that stuck). To one congregation, Young described his idea of communal living:
Now suppose we had a little society organized on the plan I mentioned at the commencement of my remarks—after the Order of Enoch—would we build our houses all alike? No. How should we live? I will tell you how I would arrange for a little family, say about a thousand persons. I would build houses expressly for their convenience in cooking, washing and every department of their domestic arrangements. Instead of having every woman getting up in the morning and fussing around a cookstove or over the fire, cooking a little food for two or three or half a dozen persons, or a dozen, as the case may be, she would have nothing to do but to go to her work. Let me have my arrangement here, a hall in which I can seat five hundred persons to eat; and I have my cooking apparatus—ranges and ovens—all prepared. And suppose we had a hall a hundred feet long with our cooking room attached to this hall; and there is a person at the farther end of the table and he should telegraph that he wanted a warm beefsteak; and this is conveyed to him by a little railway, perhaps under the table, and he or she may take her beefsteak. “What do you want to take with it?” “A cup of tea, a cup of coffee, a cup of milk, piece of toast,” or something or other, no matter what they call for, it is conveyed to them and they take it, and we can seat five hundred at once, and serve them all in a very few minutes. And when they have all eaten, the dishes are piled together, slipped under the table, and run back to the ones who wash them. We could have a few Chinamen to do that if we did not want to do it ourselves. 
Now, don’t go all crazy over Young’s perspective regarding race. I’m not really interested in that discussion right now. But like Cannon, Young betrays a belief that there are simply activities which are worth less than others. Motherhood and the Order of Enoch were deeply valued by Cannon and Young. Their establishment allowed for outsourcing certain activities to people outside the institutions.
Today technology has obviated much of the drudgery of Cannon’s household and Young’s visionary society. Still someone needs to take out the trash and other people are ready and willing. I worry however, that in relying on those we exclude from our vision to realize it, we obviate it entirely.
- Martha Hughes Cannon to Barbara Replogh, 1 May, 1885. Martha Hughes Cannon Collection, 1883-1912. LDS Church Archives.
- October 9, 1872, JD, 15:221.