Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Feb 19, '12, 7:20 pm
Allegra's Avatar
Allegra Allegra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2011
Posts: 6,197
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daralharb View Post
Wow, assume much and then file the assumptions as stated fact. Regrettable style of discourse.

Ya built the argument on sandy land, so, be prepared for its collapse:

#1- you're confusing historical gender roles with current(modern) reality. A woman taking in laundry, doing sewing, etc did so IN THE HOME. That's the key issue. In. The. Home.

#2- Yes, a woman chasing some career instead of providing a comfortable and structured home for her children is neglecting her duty. Even worse is her husband is being complacent in his children being latchkey kids, or at the mercy of some daycare worker when they could have mom.

#3- Any couple who gets married without studying the impact of finances when kids come into the picture is outright immature and selfish. "oops! didn't plan that one! quick, honey, get a job! we's gon be broke!". Less people should be married as long as this materialistic culture pervades.

#4- perpetual slave? Then what is dad? an indentured servant? Don't be obtuse. Both fill necessary roles. Not making money is potentially saving money and even more apparent- the environment of the kids' upbringing is saved. I could care less if mom works during the day when kids are at school. Fine, more power to her. But the reality is most people make more stress for themselves by adding on hours, juggling who takes who where and to what practice, sitter, etc. Dual-income families create so much stress for themselves by chasing materialism's fruits more often than not.

#5- Of course young couples "struggled", all couples do. The historical trend is to not marry until established in a career or at least done with university. This offsets the "we love each other and have no idea what real life is!" phenomena we see. Young men also used to live in bachelor quarters or at home until this was accomplished. Now these same young men chase things, large apartments, houses they can barely pay for, etc and then they discover married life is made harder by their failure to plan. And why should they when future-wifey of the Dumb Residence can help augment the income? Can you imagine if people actually thought in a financially sensible manner instead of selfishly? Just imagine. Put on Dave Ramsey in the background, imagine your grandfather's voice in lieu of Dave, and just imagine... Dave Ramsey, financial guru, gives advice he heard from my grandma. Seriously. Nothing that man says is new. It's called pre-1960's smarts.

#6- Golden days? Nah. Life has pretty much sucked since Eve said, "well, if the snake says it so..." and Adam didn't correct her. What you mean is the days of the pre-me/me/me days when people did things in a sensible and financially sound manner- don't buy a bunch of stuff on credit, don't live outside your means, etc.

#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can't afford daycare generally. If they do, it's through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (http://www.russellsage.org/research/...dren-by-income). I'm sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don't have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Feb 19, '12, 8:11 pm
Allegra's Avatar
Allegra Allegra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2011
Posts: 6,197
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daralharb View Post
#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can't afford daycare generally. If they do, it's through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (http://www.russellsage.org/research/...dren-by-income). I'm sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don't have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument...
Complete nonsense. I'm not confusing anything. I'm not talking about woman doing some other families laundry along with her own family's. I'm talking about women who taught, worked in factories, cleaned houses, worked in shops, served food. Trying to suggest that these women didn't exist is complete foolishness and trying to suggest that they were bad mothers and wives is nothing but your waving a banner of pride at how morally superior you are because your family can afford not to have two parents who work.

Secondly, if you think that a family's relationship of environment is based on the amount of time spent together you're off your rocker! Being at home to tend do every little detail of your child's life doesn't make you a better mother. Letting yourself be made into a daymaid instead of teaching your child to take care of their own needs as well as their share of the housework is not doing them any favors. Because my mother had to work, we all learned the skills needed to take care of the house and the family. We all left home knowing how to use the laundry, paint the trim, operate a bandsaw and electric screwdriver, thread the bobbin on a sewing machine, etc. By the way, you seem to think that a family's quality of life is entirely contingent on the mother being with the kids. I'd rather see both mom and dad work all week and be together on the evenings and weekends than mom at home with the kids while dad works incessantly or even goes on long business trips and hardly ever sees his kids. Children need their fathers as well, especially boys, and families need to have all-together time, not just mom and kids.

In regards to your opinion that those mothers that work are somehow neglecting their duties, I can't tell you how many times I've nearly run over the neighborhood kids who have a tendency to play games, sitting on the curb of the street while their alleged stay-at-home moms sit around and get tanked on the deck of the neighborhood pool. Meanwhile, my mother was at every classroom party, game, and concert we had. She made us costumes for Halloween and dresses for our proms. My grandmother worked in a shoe factory so that her children could attend Catholic school, but she took the time to teach them all to play the piano. My other grandmother came home from selling real estate, cooked a meal for her husband and four children and then sat down the rest of the evening to teach her three deaf children how to read, write, and speak. She had to work because they had to sell their family farm and move to a city that had a school for the deaf and her husband couldn't always make enough money to pay for their house and the tuition. What a disgraceful, selfish woman! My mother's grandmother never worked, until her husband died. She then had to run tables because she had nothing more than an eighth grade education.

I'm amazed that you have the nerve to write the comment suggesting that only those who meet your high standards of financial security have the right to be married and have children. However, I will agree that it would be better if people planned their finances better and lived within their means. (And that includes women who have the capacity to get a job but would rather take money from their parents, their neighbors, charity, and the taxpayers than do so, all under the guise of "the children come first". )

I disagree with you firmly that life sucks. Actually, life is pretty good. Especially, when you have a job you don't hate and a family that is worth working for and that you look forward to spending time with.

I guess you didn't notice, but I wasn't comparing the poor with the privileged. I was comparing the average with the privileged. And I'm certainly not angry that the rich have money. Good for them! They probably earned it by a combination of hard work and good fortune. That does not make them morally superior and the fact that they can live comfortaby on their one income is not a virtue but a generous gift that they ought to be thankful for. It certainly does not give them liscence to look down on those who have not achieved the same.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Feb 19, '12, 8:17 pm
LightBound LightBound is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2011
Posts: 1,939
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daralharb View Post
Wow, assume much and then file the assumptions as stated fact. Regrettable style of discourse.

Ya built the argument on sandy land, so, be prepared for its collapse:

#1- you're confusing historical gender roles with current(modern) reality. A woman taking in laundry, doing sewing, etc did so IN THE HOME. That's the key issue. In. The. Home.

#2- Yes, a woman chasing some career instead of providing a comfortable and structured home for her children is neglecting her duty. Even worse is her husband is being complacent in his children being latchkey kids, or at the mercy of some daycare worker when they could have mom.

#3- Any couple who gets married without studying the impact of finances when kids come into the picture is outright immature and selfish. "oops! didn't plan that one! quick, honey, get a job! we's gon be broke!". Less people should be married as long as this materialistic culture pervades.

#4- perpetual slave? Then what is dad? an indentured servant? Don't be obtuse. Both fill necessary roles. Not making money is potentially saving money and even more apparent- the environment of the kids' upbringing is saved. I could care less if mom works during the day when kids are at school. Fine, more power to her. But the reality is most people make more stress for themselves by adding on hours, juggling who takes who where and to what practice, sitter, etc. Dual-income families create so much stress for themselves by chasing materialism's fruits more often than not.

#5- Of course young couples "struggled", all couples do. The historical trend is to not marry until established in a career or at least done with university. This offsets the "we love each other and have no idea what real life is!" phenomena we see. Young men also used to live in bachelor quarters or at home until this was accomplished. Now these same young men chase things, large apartments, houses they can barely pay for, etc and then they discover married life is made harder by their failure to plan. And why should they when future-wifey of the Dumb Residence can help augment the income? Can you imagine if people actually thought in a financially sensible manner instead of selfishly? Just imagine. Put on Dave Ramsey in the background, imagine your grandfather's voice in lieu of Dave, and just imagine... Dave Ramsey, financial guru, gives advice he heard from my grandma. Seriously. Nothing that man says is new. It's called pre-1960's smarts.

#6- Golden days? Nah. Life has pretty much sucked since Eve said, "well, if the snake says it so..." and Adam didn't correct her. What you mean is the days of the pre-me/me/me days when people did things in a sensible and financially sound manner- don't buy a bunch of stuff on credit, don't live outside your means, etc.

#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can't afford daycare generally. If they do, it's through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (http://www.russellsage.org/research/...dren-by-income). I'm sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don't have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument...

The Church didn't have an issue with Saint Gianna Beretta Molla being a working mom. She was a medical doctor married to a prominant business man, so it wasn't for money that she worked outside the home. Some women do have more than one calling.....in St Gianna's case, it was her husband and children, plus the women and children she saw as patients in her clinic.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Feb 19, '12, 9:23 pm
Daralharb Daralharb is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 192
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Of course women have always worked in various regards, they even claim one of the oldest professions! Are you suggesting I'm positing that some spinsters parents take care of her? No, she should get a job. I'm solely discussing married with children and chasing careers, not some part-time job when the school-age children are off to school. Nor am I discussing what women have done during extraordinary times. The point is, stay at home mothers have the ability to work, and with the internet, certain jobs are easy to get as a telecommuter: a total win-win!

The women's liberation/feminism movement, inspired by a totally out of context understanding of the Rosie the Riveter Icon and all associated workers therein, is what started, along with the hippie movement (which goes back to the underground movements of the earlier generations), the downfall of the American society. Fact.

I'm not suggesting the Church or even society should have a problem with women working, I am merely expressing the reality that family life was a lot better off overall before this influx of women into the workforce in positions men have always traditionally held. I mean seriously. All it does is create more competition for jobs where none need be. When the need for jobs creates industry, it's often somehow tax-funded and doomed to failure. When industry creates jobs, they will be filled.

Any parent that is going to let their impressionable youngster be exposed to adults and their insane ideas about life, religion, etc as authority figures- assuming they don't use a known Catholic party for this- is an outright idiot in this day and age. Especially for kids who wouldn't normally be in school during the day due to their young age. I'm not even happy about the government forcing public school on people via taxation without the ability to use a school voucher or get a return for homeschooling outside of standardized test-administration cost.

As per St. Gianna, she had a ministry calling obviously. Should I lobby for Catholic women who are healthcare professionals to suck the pus out of wounds of patients because St. Catherine of Siena did it? Come on. I'm talking in general here and you have one example of a Saint who had a completely different station in life than most.

Why, I wonder, do women feel this crazy need to have a job, any job, when it leads to nothing but more stress or cost to offset the stress?

I'm talking good of society and family, feelings aren't even in the top 3. And all I'm reading is feelings and examples flailing to grasp a root.

Excellent, you were self-taught(?*) on life skills. *That's a parent's job. My mom, the stay at home one, took me in the laundry room and said, "here's how you wash your own clothes, don't break my washer", and went to doing other things with her newly open minutes. Dad, similarly, said, "this is how you do X, don't break my tools", and expected me to be self-sufficient by following instructions.

Per the stay-at-home concubines (they certainly aren't acting like mothers!), that's obviously bad parenting. I'm not espousing bad parenting, so, what does this have to do with anything pertinent other than the failings of a woman to do her parental duties? Same type of person is the reason affirmative-action hired Federal employees are such a poor example of workers- almost impossible to get fired. The stay-at-home mom knows she can't get fired per se, so, it is easier to become lazy. Friends are easier to hang out with than children who must submit to parental authority, so they make friends of their children and then wonder why they have smart mouths and/or are outright disrespectful.

Per the OP title, I'd say this: the USCCB isn't big or little on women working. I doubt they have an opinion in the extreme of either way. However, the USCCB cannot, in its PC-right mind, come out and say women shouldn't work in general/at all (nor am I saying this), as the actual (complex) social/moral teaching on such an issue would become so convoluted in controversy that pretty soon, sensational headlines such as "Perpetual Slaves!? USCCB Hates Women!" would appear. If 100, or even 50 years ago, you heard someone say a mother should be at home, the response would likely result in a comment analogous to the obvious lack of fecal matter in the direction of Sherlock. Now? The culture has changed, and with it, the family.

I will say this: Dad's shed didn't get burned down when mom was at home.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Feb 19, '12, 9:47 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daralharb View Post
Of course women have always worked in various regards, they even claim one of the oldest professions! Are you suggesting I'm positing that some spinsters parents take care of her? No, she should get a job. I'm solely discussing married with children and chasing careers, not some part-time job when the school-age children are off to school. Nor am I discussing what women have done during extraordinary times. The point is, stay at home mothers have the ability to work, and with the internet, certain jobs are easy to get as a telecommuter: a total win-win!

The women's liberation/feminism movement, inspired by a totally out of context understanding of the Rosie the Riveter Icon and all associated workers therein, is what started, along with the hippie movement (which goes back to the underground movements of the earlier generations), the downfall of the American society. Fact.

I'm not suggesting the Church or even society should have a problem with women working, I am merely expressing the reality that family life was a lot better off overall before this influx of women into the workforce in positions men have always traditionally held. I mean seriously. All it does is create more competition for jobs where none need be. When the need for jobs creates industry, it's often somehow tax-funded and doomed to failure. When industry creates jobs, they will be filled.

I will say this: Dad's shed didn't get burned down when mom was at home.
Perhaps don't agree with the statement that women shouldn't be in jobs held traditionally by men (other than those requiring physical ability that few women possess) but I do agree that the change in traditional roles has been a huge disaster for children and families. Women have forged their way into the working world outside the home, taking on that breadwinner (traditionally male) role. and sadly some men particularly in certain communities have thus abdicated their role as provider and protector leaving our country with a massive percentage of single mothers without a male in the home to both provide for and protect his family. There are two words that describe the cause of poverty in this country "single mothers" and no that doesn't mean they are bad people but the reality is that children raised in intact families with a mother and father married to each other are far less likely to be living off the rest of the taxpayers, dealing with drugs, teen pregnancies, and other unproductive behavior.

As a female who lived through "Women's Lib" as they called it, I can assure you this movement bore evil fruits even if the intentions were noble. Males and females have different natures and when you force either into an unnatural way of life, it does not bring out the best in either sex. We are now plagued with a bastion of irresponsible sperm donors, women who do not have the financial or emotional reserves to provide a good environment for raising children and the poor children who are dragged through the parents' chaotic lives. And before the onslaught of "well my mom was single and she was a saint" begins, I am talking about the average situation, not the exception. The statistics are clear. "Breadwinner mom" and no father is a recipe for poverty. Women being expected to work, and they are these days, has completely changed the way children grow up in this country. Free love, free sex, do what feels good have created some of the evil fruits previously described. Women being "liberated" from the 'chains' of taking care of their families to go out and earn money has only made them over worked, over tired and overwhelmed.

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old Feb 19, '12, 10:01 pm
Daralharb Daralharb is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 192
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Perhaps don't agree with the statement that women shouldn't be in jobs held traditionally by men (other than those requiring physical ability that few women possess) but I do agree that the change in traditional roles has been a huge disaster for children and families. Women have forged their way into the working world outside the home, taking on that breadwinner (traditionally male) role. and sadly some men particularly in certain communities have thus abdicated their role as provider and protector leaving our country with a massive percentage of single mothers without a male in the home to both provide for and protect his family. There are two words that describe the cause of poverty in this country "single mothers" and no that doesn't mean they are bad people but the reality is that children raised in intact families with a mother and father married to each other are far less likely to be living off the rest of the taxpayers, dealing with drugs, teen pregnancies, and other unproductive behavior.

As a female who lived through "Women's Lib" as they called it, I can assure you this movement bore evil fruits even if the intentions were noble. Males and females have different natures and when you force either into an unnatural way of life, it does not bring out the best in either sex. We are now plagued with a bastion of irresponsible sperm donors, women who do not have the financial or emotional reserves to provide a good environment for raising children and the poor children who are dragged through the parents' chaotic lives. And before the onslaught of "well my mom was single and she was a saint" begins, I am talking about the average situation, not the exception. The statistics are clear. "Breadwinner mom" and no father is a recipe for poverty. Women being expected to work, and they are these days, has completely changed the way children grow up in this country. Free love, free sex, do what feels good have created some of the evil fruits previously described. Women being "liberated" from the 'chains' of taking care of their families to go out and earn money has only made them over worked, over tired and overwhelmed.

Lisa
Lisa, I'd hire you to do Public Relations work for me, but, well, you know...


Husband who marvels at his wife's ability to keep things steady while he is at work, and all associated with it- despite it not necessarily being the most glamorous life VS insulting pay structure, sexual harassment increase, etc.

I just don't understand the desire to submit oneself to the latter in lieu of the former.

Last edited by Matilda Bennett; Feb 20, '12 at 10:11 am.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old Feb 20, '12, 2:19 am
Daralharb Daralharb is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 17, 2012
Posts: 192
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

And stuff like this happens with the truly twisted career chasers:

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riversi...-neighbors.ece
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old Feb 20, '12, 7:05 am
Sailor Kenshin's Avatar
Sailor Kenshin Sailor Kenshin is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: August 29, 2007
Posts: 9,731
Religion: Anti-marxist
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Perhaps don't agree with the statement that women shouldn't be in jobs held traditionally by men (other than those requiring physical ability that few women possess) but I do agree that the change in traditional roles has been a huge disaster for children and families. Women have forged their way into the working world outside the home, taking on that breadwinner (traditionally male) role. and sadly some men particularly in certain communities have thus abdicated their role as provider and protector leaving our country with a massive percentage of single mothers without a male in the home to both provide for and protect his family. There are two words that describe the cause of poverty in this country "single mothers" and no that doesn't mean they are bad people but the reality is that children raised in intact families with a mother and father married to each other are far less likely to be living off the rest of the taxpayers, dealing with drugs, teen pregnancies, and other unproductive behavior.

As a female who lived through "Women's Lib" as they called it, I can assure you this movement bore evil fruits even if the intentions were noble. Males and females have different natures and when you force either into an unnatural way of life, it does not bring out the best in either sex. We are now plagued with a bastion of irresponsible sperm donors, women who do not have the financial or emotional reserves to provide a good environment for raising children and the poor children who are dragged through the parents' chaotic lives. And before the onslaught of "well my mom was single and she was a saint" begins, I am talking about the average situation, not the exception. The statistics are clear. "Breadwinner mom" and no father is a recipe for poverty. Women being expected to work, and they are these days, has completely changed the way children grow up in this country. Free love, free sex, do what feels good have created some of the evil fruits previously described. Women being "liberated" from the 'chains' of taking care of their families to go out and earn money has only made them over worked, over tired and overwhelmed.

Lisa
Well-said. I would put in my two cents' worth:

The intentions of 'women's liberation' were never noble. The snake did it once, he tried again, succeeded brilliantly in destroying the family unit.
__________________
Watch this space for further developments.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old Feb 20, '12, 7:21 am
Nate13 Nate13 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2011
Posts: 2,955
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Kenshin View Post
Well-said. I would put in my two cents' worth:

The intentions of 'women's liberation' were never noble. The snake did it once, he tried again, succeeded brilliantly in destroying the family unit.
I agree. I highly doubt the majority of 40% of all women who having babies outside of marriage and the 70% of black women in particular having babies outside of marriage feel "liberated".
__________________
We are all born with the power of speech, but we need grammar. Conscience, too, needs Revelation.
― Fulton J. Sheen
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old Feb 20, '12, 7:34 am
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Kenshin View Post
Well-said. I would put in my two cents' worth:

The intentions of 'women's liberation' were never noble. The snake did it once, he tried again, succeeded brilliantly in destroying the family unit.
Good point. I think there were some sincerely well intentioned people who saw this as giving the same kind of freedom to women that the Civil Rights movement provided to blacks. Women got freedom all right...freedom to kill their babies, freedom to be exposed to STDs, to be used by irresponsible men who were never held to a higher standard and the freedom to be tossed aside like a used tissue. The children are the casualties of this war. We should ask better of both sexes but it's not politically correct is it?

Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old Feb 20, '12, 8:13 am
Swiss Guy's Avatar
Swiss Guy Swiss Guy is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 4,001
Religion: Christian in the Holy Catholic Church
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithBuild18 View Post
I would have just thought that, since family is one of their biggest concerns, they'd voice some sort of supportive of 1 working parent per family.

I think it that would also help alleviate the massive disparity between wealthy and poor families. If fewer people were in the job market, there'd be more jobs available. Family A has 2 working parents, while Family B has 0 working parents. What if each family had 1 working parent? Family A wouldn't be as wealthy, and Family B wouldn't be as poor. Obviously the children of these families would reap the biggest rewards.
Hmmm....sounds a little socialist there in the second paragraph. But anyway, to answer your question....

I've never found that the USCCB is big on women working. They've encouraged women and minorities getting equal pay as men for the same jobs because that's fair and just, but I haven't noticed them pushing for more women working. What I have noticed is the USCCB is big for keeping families together and families in general. It is for whatever will accomplish that and the traditional view of marriage (man and woman). So no, the USCCB doesn't really favor women or men working.
__________________




*I converted to Catholicism on the Easter Vigil on 3/30/13. Some posts may contain information that I believe is incorrect or was poorly understood. Usually someone else is a better source for a Catholic voice.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old Feb 20, '12, 10:40 am
LightBound LightBound is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2011
Posts: 1,939
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daralharb View Post
Of course women have always worked in various regards, they even claim one of the oldest professions! Are you suggesting I'm positing that some spinsters parents take care of her? No, she should get a job. I'm solely discussing married with children and chasing careers, not some part-time job when the school-age children are off to school. Nor am I discussing what women have done during extraordinary times. The point is, stay at home mothers have the ability to work, and with the internet, certain jobs are easy to get as a telecommuter: a total win-win!

The women's liberation/feminism movement, inspired by a totally out of context understanding of the Rosie the Riveter Icon and all associated workers therein, is what started, along with the hippie movement (which goes back to the underground movements of the earlier generations), the downfall of the American society. Fact.

I'm not suggesting the Church or even society should have a problem with women working, I am merely expressing the reality that family life was a lot better off overall before this influx of women into the workforce in positions men have always traditionally held. I mean seriously. All it does is create more competition for jobs where none need be. When the need for jobs creates industry, it's often somehow tax-funded and doomed to failure. When industry creates jobs, they will be filled.

Any parent that is going to let their impressionable youngster be exposed to adults and their insane ideas about life, religion, etc as authority figures- assuming they don't use a known Catholic party for this- is an outright idiot in this day and age. Especially for kids who wouldn't normally be in school during the day due to their young age. I'm not even happy about the government forcing public school on people via taxation without the ability to use a school voucher or get a return for homeschooling outside of standardized test-administration cost.

As per St. Gianna, she had a ministry calling obviously. Should I lobby for Catholic women who are healthcare professionals to suck the pus out of wounds of patients because St. Catherine of Siena did it? Come on. I'm talking in general here and you have one example of a Saint who had a completely different station in life than most.

Why, I wonder, do women feel this crazy need to have a job, any job, when it leads to nothing but more stress or cost to offset the stress?

I'm talking good of society and family, feelings aren't even in the top 3. And all I'm reading is feelings and examples flailing to grasp a root.

Excellent, you were self-taught(?*) on life skills. *That's a parent's job. My mom, the stay at home one, took me in the laundry room and said, "here's how you wash your own clothes, don't break my washer", and went to doing other things with her newly open minutes. Dad, similarly, said, "this is how you do X, don't break my tools", and expected me to be self-sufficient by following instructions.

Per the stay-at-home concubines (they certainly aren't acting like mothers!), that's obviously bad parenting. I'm not espousing bad parenting, so, what does this have to do with anything pertinent other than the failings of a woman to do her parental duties? Same type of person is the reason affirmative-action hired Federal employees are such a poor example of workers- almost impossible to get fired. The stay-at-home mom knows she can't get fired per se, so, it is easier to become lazy. Friends are easier to hang out with than children who must submit to parental authority, so they make friends of their children and then wonder why they have smart mouths and/or are outright disrespectful.

Per the OP title, I'd say this: the USCCB isn't big or little on women working. I doubt they have an opinion in the extreme of either way. However, the USCCB cannot, in its PC-right mind, come out and say women shouldn't work in general/at all (nor am I saying this), as the actual (complex) social/moral teaching on such an issue would become so convoluted in controversy that pretty soon, sensational headlines such as "Perpetual Slaves!? USCCB Hates Women!" would appear. If 100, or even 50 years ago, you heard someone say a mother should be at home, the response would likely result in a comment analogous to the obvious lack of fecal matter in the direction of Sherlock. Now? The culture has changed, and with it, the family.

I will say this: Dad's shed didn't get burned down when mom was at home.
There is NO reason to be rude about this, now is there? You are rather new to CAF and being arrogant and condescending to others just because they hold a different view or post something you happen to disagree with is against forum rules. Please don't be so sarcastic with others just because they don't agree with what you've posted.

Last edited by LightBound; Feb 20, '12 at 10:59 am.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old Feb 20, '12, 10:53 am
Matilda Bennett's Avatar
Matilda Bennett Matilda Bennett is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: December 19, 2011
Posts: 865
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old Feb 20, '12, 11:00 am
LightBound LightBound is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2011
Posts: 1,939
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matilda Bennett View Post
Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old Feb 20, '12, 11:05 am
1AugustSon7's Avatar
1AugustSon7 1AugustSon7 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 25, 2012
Posts: 1,124
Religion: Catholic Christian
Default Re: Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

I hope people today can realize that, just like the USSR, our economic problems today are not actually under-employment but over-employment. There's simply not enough work to go around, which means hyper-consumerism becomes necessary to artificially drive up demand. All the G20's various stimulus packages have been aimed at artificially generating demand. Hyper-consumerism also of course encourages debt accumulation that destroys real wealth and converts wealth into liability. That is extremely communistic in effect, even if no one intended it to be.

There's no shortage of people who would gladly work more hours, for example. The problem is that there's not enough demand to justify the added production.

Consider that as women were added to the workforce in droves following the '60's, nonetheless GDP did not increase by rapid proportions. If the workforce increased by 25% as a result of added employment, we did not see a 25% increase in overall GDP. This is, of course, counter-intuitive.

Notice also that health care is the number one and fastest increasing social liability society has. It went from consuming 6 or 7% of GDP in the early sixties to being closer to 18% today. That is an enormous increase in the span of one generation. But let's be honest, what is largely to blame for bad health? Stress and poor diet. Now when both parents work the duties at home become more, not less, difficult to manage. Who makes the kids' breakfasts, lunches and diner? Who drives them to school and picks them up? Who helps them with their homework? Who gets them to sport practice (exercise)? Who makes sure the school and teachers are doing their job? Etc.

The Christian wife and mother was and is a blessing to her family in many respects. She was at liberty to ensure the welfare of her family in the most vital areas of concern: both their bodily and even their mental health (for example). By her effort a house truly became a home, which from a psychological perspective is enormously important for the healthy socialization of children and young people, for example. It stabilized not only the children but everyone in the household and provided a sense of belonging and orderliness. By dividing responsibilities it allowed people to concentrate on their respective duties or responsibilities fully without having excessive concern over a litany of other things.

We went from an economy in the '50's and '60's where average Joe worker earned enough with his salary or wage for at least the equivalent of a small, modest house and a vehicle, whilst saving for retirement and college for his children. Today two working parents struggle to provide the necessities for even their smaller family. There's something seriously wrong here.

Now I don't mean to imply this was a consequence of women working per se. A lot of it was and is a direct consequence of terrible economic management and policy on part of the authorities. Still, the depravation of the household of 'mom' and 'wife' as such left a vacuum that in many ways the government now must try to fulfill for everyone. Hence we deal more and more with Big Mommy government.

Christians should be content in life with the things necessary to live a dignified life. If we give-in to hyper-consumerism we risk serving mammom as our idol. Far better it is to have a happy, peaceful home than a mansion of chaos and misery. Government has a duty to strive to make the former way of life as feasible as possible and to protect it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Social Justice

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8457Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: suko
5143CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3735Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3318Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3282Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3223Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3109For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: RevDrJBTDDPhD



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:56 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.