Attn. Christians of Various Traditions: Women & Head Covering ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComeHome2Rome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComeHome2Rome said:
You’re right, I probably am since the one developed into the other. In the photos you posted are of women are working outside of the home, it was the beginning of what we have now where we typically fall below the poverty line unless there are at least 2 incomes in a single family, abortions, etc. - as a woman, I’m not a fan 🙂
Click to expand...
As a woman, cousin and aunt I am a fan. My aunt was widowed with 5 kids, my SIL same with just 3 kids. I’m glad both of these women were able to work and provide for their families. Perhaps you believe social security should be expanded or another program developed so ladies who find themselves in these circumstances could stay home rather than leave their homes to work with uncovered heads.

I would like to see how women working leads to abortion, could you provide that please, thanks.
 
zaffiroborant said:
As a woman, cousin and aunt I am a fan. My aunt was widowed with 5 kids, my SIL same with just 3 kids. I’m glad both of these women were able to work and provide for their families. Perhaps you believe social security should be expanded or another program developed so ladies who find themselves in these circumstances could stay home rather than leave their homes to work with uncovered heads.

I would like to see how women working leads to abortion, could you provide that please, thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes in their circumstance it is good but the point being made was that many families can no longer be supported on one income. I don’t think it is good that children are not being reared by parents but instead are being looked after by non family members. How would abortion play into this? I remember one famous tennis player who had an abortion because it interfered with her career. I doubt if she was the only one. I was told by a family member that she wasn’t going to loose out on a career because of children. She had more to do with her life than to raise children. I don’t think she is an anomaly. I am glad your family members were able to provide for their family. ComeHome2Rome wasn’t speaking to them. Her point was accurate.
 
zaffiroborant said:
As a woman, cousin and aunt I am a fan. My aunt was widowed with 5 kids, my SIL same with just 3 kids. I’m glad both of these women were able to work and provide for their families. Perhaps you believe social security should be expanded or another program developed so ladies who find themselves in these circumstances could stay home rather than leave their homes to work with uncovered heads.

I would like to see how women working leads to abortion, could you provide that please, thanks.
Click to expand...
It was the same women who promoted women’s lib that pushed for birth control, abortion, etc.

Before women’s lib/sufferage some women, like those in your Aunt’s situation, were able to get work either in or out of their home to earn enough money to maintain their homes & take care of their children plus the Church was also there to help widows & orphans as well. It was rare and back then but work was available as a domestic worker, cook, laundry, nursing, or ironing, etc. back then, one a single income per family was needed to live above poverty.

As a single working mom for the last 18 yrs, I don’t like the results of women’s sufferage/lib - being gone from 7 am to 7 pm 5 days a week working hard in order to barely make ends meet renting in a bad neighborhood & driving a 13 yr old car because in order to purchase a home in a decent neighborhood, a dual income is needed for a family because of women’s lib/sufferage. I remain totally Not a fan.
 
adrift said:
Yes in their circumstance it is good but the point being made was that many families can no longer be supported on one income. I don’t think it is good that children are not being reared by parents but instead are being looked after by non family members. How would abortion play into this? I remember one famous tennis player who had an abortion because it interfered with her career. I doubt if she was the only one. I was told by a family member that she wasn’t going to loose out on a career because of children. She had more to do with her life than to raise children. I don’t think she is an anomaly. I am glad your family members were able to provide for their family. ComeHome2Rome wasn’t speaking to them. Her point was accurate.
Click to expand...
Yes, I affirm this was my point 🙂

And I agree with your point that now a days it’s very common for women to either birth control themselves & or abort their children for the sake of their career dreams rather than accepting the role of motherhood by which women will be saved 1 Tim. 2:15, a role which women were physically designed for, one of the primary purposes of our creation. This avoiding of the “burden” of children was one of the primary focus’ of the women’s suffrage/liberation…it was primarily children that those women wanted to be liberated from!
 
Nevertheless I still see women covering their heads in Church. Usually most notable going slightly early. I often see small groups of women and a few men who are there early praying, adoration etc. The depth of their faith certainly doesn’t go un-noticed. Its been this way as long as I can I remember.

V-I to V-II didn’t change this. The American mindset of the late 60’s forward is whats reflected. And as we see in many areas today. This mindset changed the thinking of women and men in the states with dress, attitude about Church/God/life, the catechesis also lacked through this period. Many social issues escalated from here with dress, sex, abortion, gay-rights. The true intended purpose was the civil rights movement and the war/peace. All the rest become a by-product and quickly the protestant congregations evolved from here also. God was banned from public schools in 61.

So no the speculation about V-II as usual is incorrect.
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
It was the same women who promoted women’s lib that pushed for birth control, abortion, etc.

Before women’s lib/sufferage some women, like those in your Aunt’s situation, were able to get work either in or out of their home to earn enough money to maintain their homes & take care of their children plus the Church was also there to help widows & orphans as well. It was rare and back then but work was available as a domestic worker, cook, laundry, nursing, or ironing, etc. back then, one a single income per family was needed to live above poverty.
Click to expand...
Then why were 2 million children employed? If those mothers were capable of providing for their children and only one income was need to stay above poverty why did they send them off to factories? In 1870 children between 10 and 14 comprised 6 percent of the work force. Why is that?
ComeHome2Rome said:
As a single working mom for the last 18 yrs, I don’t like the results of women’s sufferage/lib - being gone from 7 am to 7 pm 5 days a week working hard in order to barely make ends meet renting in a bad neighborhood & driving a 13 yr old car because in order to purchase a home in a decent neighborhood, a dual income is needed for a family because of women’s lib/sufferage. I remain totally Not a fan.
Click to expand...
So women shouldn’t be allowed to vote (I really can’t see why you think women shouldn’t vote do you stick to this and abstain at election time?) or work because you don’t like your life? I have quite a few friends and family who like working and are glad for the changes that allow them to do so. As to 2 incomes this is just the latest version of “the company store” companies have always and will always pay people the least amount of money possible. They are not in business to provide for, or care about children they are in business to make money for the owners and investors.

ETA:

Could you provide some support for your assertion that women wore head coverings in their everyday lives up until the women’s lib movement? There are a number of portraits and photographs of our first ladies showing them without head coverings. Back to Dolley Madison and Martha Jefferson.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Then why were 2 million children employed? If those mothers were capable of providing for their children and only one income was need to stay above poverty why did they send them off to factories? In 1870 children between 10 and 14 comprised 6 percent of the work force. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Child Labor in the United States
Society was much different then and I doubt that the 2 million you mention were all from mothers who had to have a second income. I would say most of them were from the farm when all family members were expected to work. Society than expected children to work “idlidle hands make for the devil’s work”
Could you provide some support for your assertion that women wore head coverings in their everyday lives up until the women’s lib movement? There are a number of portraits and photographs of our first ladies showing them without head coverings. Back to Dolley Madison and Martha Jefferson.
Click to expand...
I did. Here is the link again. History of Hats It had very little to do with wome’s lib and more to do with changing society norms.
 
adrift said:
Child Labor in the United States
Society was much different then and I doubt that the 2 million you mention were all from mothers who had to have a second income. I would say most of them were from the farm when all family members were expected to work. Society than expected children to work “idlidle hands make for the devil’s work”

.
Click to expand...
From your source
In 1820 children aged 15 and under made up 23 percent of the manufacturing labor force of the industrializing Northeast.
Click to expand...
These children were not working for their pocket money, they were working because men were not being paid enough to support families.

I’d also point out that often these women suffragettes, that people love to revile as the source of all of today’s evils, were also the ones who pushed to have children educated instead of being put to work in factories with dangerous and wretched conditions.
 
hn160 said:
I blame Vatican II for the drop in head covering by women in church.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Ancient as I am, I remember hats AND gloves. No bare shoulders, no bare legs. Sandals were iffy. No jeans either.
 
Stilldreamn said:
Pretty much. Ancient as I am, I remember hats AND gloves. No bare shoulders, no bare legs. Sandals were iffy. No jeans either.
Click to expand...
And again just what does Vatican II have to do with the practice of other churches?
 
zaffiroborant said:
And again just what does Vatican II have to do with the practice of other churches?
Click to expand...
Oh dear. I didn’t meant that as a critical remark at all. In the town I grew up in, our tiny Lutheran minority was always aware of the larger local Catholic practices - and so when one large group of women stopped wearing hats, we were sure to follow.
 
Stilldreamn said:
Oh dear. I didn’t meant that as a critical remark at all. In the town I grew up in, our tiny Lutheran minority was always aware of the larger local Catholic practices - and so when one large group of women stopped wearing hats, we were sure to follow.
Click to expand...
I don’t really see the remark as critical, but I really don’t understand how so many non Catholics lay the loss of hats at it’s feet. It doesn’t make sense to me that other churches would adopt a practice derived from a Catholic council. I don’t (particularly at that time) see a clamoring to emulate Catholic practice or view it as a bell weather of proper behavior. Not to mention that Vatican II did not forbid women covering their heads and and Catholic women did not immediately and en masse quit wearing head coverings.
 
Not that I necessarily buy the whole “it’s Vatican II’s fault” idea, but I do have to wonder (in response to those who’ve asked) how it is that the practice of the largest single church on the planet wouldn’t have some sort of effect on other churches. Not so much related to the covering issue, but the EO admit to a period of “Western Captivity” in their own church, and the Copts are still plagued by wayyyy too much Roman Catholic religious art in their churches, leading to a shameful ignorance of traditional iconography on the part of many of us. No church or congregation is an island unto itself, and given the relative power differential (i.e., the fact that people actually pay attention to what Rome does much more than Rome or its people pay attention to what happens in other churches), it seems inevitable that Rome’s decision would have an effect on others outside of their communion. For some, it’s a large effect since they are more closely tied to Rome (e.g., Protestants), while for others a smaller effect since they are more committed to their distinct liturgical and other practices which developed largely separate from post-Schism Rome (e.g., Orthodox).
 
zaffiroborant said:
I don’t really see the remark as critical, but I really don’t understand how so many non Catholics lay the loss of hats at it’s feet. It doesn’t make sense to me that other churches would adopt a practice derived from a Catholic council. I don’t (particularly at that time) see a clamoring to emulate Catholic practice or view it as a bell weather of proper behavior. Not to mention that Vatican II did not forbid women covering their heads and and Catholic women did not immediately and en masse quit wearing head coverings.
Click to expand...
The Lutheran church retained much of the traditional Mass and liturgical practices and still does. In the Baltic region where my family originated, women traditionally covered their heads and this carried over to America. We did not decide that headcoverings were optional because of Vatican II, but because the local customs changed (hats/veils optional) the Lutheran ladies followed suit.
 
dzheremi said:
Not that I necessarily buy the whole “it’s Vatican II’s fault” idea, but I do have to wonder (in response to those who’ve asked) how it is that the practice of the largest single church on the planet wouldn’t have some sort of effect on other churches. Not so much related to the covering issue, but the EO admit to a period of “Western Captivity” in their own church, and the Copts are still plagued by wayyyy too much Roman Catholic religious art in their churches, leading to a shameful ignorance of traditional iconography on the part of many of us. No church or congregation is an island unto itself, and given the relative power differential (i.e., the fact that people actually pay attention to what Rome does much more than Rome or its people pay attention to what happens in other churches), it seems inevitable that Rome’s decision would have an effect on others outside of their communion. For some, it’s a large effect since they are more closely tied to Rome (e.g., Protestants), while for others a smaller effect since they are more committed to their distinct liturgical and other practices which developed largely separate from post-Schism Rome (e.g., Orthodox).
Click to expand...
Well first of all like I said I’ve never seen any evidence that Catholic practice has been regarded as the way Christians should behave. Secondly Vatican 2 never said anything about women covering their heads.
 
My point isn’t that Catholic practice is how people should behave. My point is that the RCC communion is too big and important on a world level not to have any effect outside of its communion.
 
dzheremi said:
My point isn’t that Catholic practice is how people should behave. My point is that the RCC communion is too big and important on a world level not to have any effect outside of its communion.
Click to expand...
In the US 25 percent of Christians are Catholic leaving 75 percent in churches that at some point in time left the Catholic church. It seems more likely that Catholic behavior would be influenced more than the reverse. And like I said Vatican 2 said nothing about head coverings, I don’t think any Catholic council addresses the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top