Feminism and Divorce

[Nyarlathotep]

“All in the name of feminism?” You made a series of bad decisions in your life purely “in the name of feminism”? A regretful feminist warrior reveals all.

That’s all the result of feminism is it? It’s nothing to do with the labor market at this stage of capitalism, nothing to do with the technological revolution, nothing to do with foreign competition that’s changed the nature of the industrial and financial base.

Nope, just feminism.

Riiiigggghhht

Well, to be fair, if you had been indoctrinated into the philosophy that “Working woman = ideal and only goal in life” and “Housewife & mother = slave to phallocratic patriarchal social construct”, then I guess you could say that “feminism” put you on the wrong path if you might otherwise have been perfectly happy married / stay-at-home-mom / part-time worker / etc.

The problem people have with “feminism”, so-called, (IMHO), is not so much that it tells women that they should be given the same opportunities as men to do whatever they like in life, but that some so-called “feminists” have avowed that (1) there are no differences between men and women, and (2) not only may you strive to climb the corporate ladder and eschew traditional wife and mother thing, but that you should, and that not doing so is somehow a sign of weakness. That’s the part that gets people.

It’s imperative that we, as a society, do not take the generalizations we make about “men” and “women” collectively and apply them to individual men and women. Example: Let’s say I am a fire chief. I happen to know, from my years on this earth, that, in general, men are physically stronger than women. There is no harm in making that generalization. What I cannot do, however, is send away the woman that wants to join the fire department. I have to let her grab the hose and see what she can do, and judge her by the same criteria as all other applicants.

But where it gets too far is when I’m told that I can’t even recognize that mothers and fathers tend to behave differently. A mom is not the same as a dad, and a household of 2 moms, 2 dads, 1 mom, or 1 dad, is not the “ideal”.

 

[JimG]

Porkchop2:

I do not mean to judge, but please, feminism destroyed my life for many years, and was like an insidious cancer growing into unhappiness. My heart breaks when women tell me that they might have to go back to work so they can afford vacations, pay down the credit card bills, or pay tuition at the local private high school, but it is all just a trap to keep the woman away from her family. My thinking was so messed up, and what I thought was confidence was just ugly pride and arrogance. I have so much more confidence since I have been home.

Kaninchen:

That’s all the result of feminism is it? It’s nothing to do with the labor market at this stage of capitalism, nothing to do with the technological revolution, nothing to do with foreign competition that’s changed the nature of the industrial and financial base.

Nope, just feminism.

Ideas do have consequences. And they always trickle down. No matter how ivory tower the idea may start out, it ultimately works out its consequences in the lives of ordinary people. Bad ideas have bad consequences; good ideas have good consequences. Marx and Engels may have been theoriticians, but their ideas ultimately worked their way down to cause death for millions.

Porkchop2 gave a heartfelt description of the ways in which she believes that the ideas attributed to feminist philosophy worked themselves out in her own life. I’m glad she told of her experience; I’m certain that there are thousands of others who might tell similar stories.

It’s not particularly fair to tell her that no, whatever happened, it was all your fault. The ideas you soaked up from the general culture had nothing to do with it.

It’s not as though we must ascribe all all historical evils simply to the inevitable movements played on a historical stage with little human involvement. Yes, people do make decisions, sometimes bad ones. Whatever happens is the result of human decisions. And ideas do have consequences. Including bad ideas. Bad ideas, spread sufficiently, affect the thinking of ordinary people.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, to be fair, if you had been indoctrinated into the philosophy that “Working woman = ideal and only goal in life” and “Housewife & mother = slave to phallocratic patriarchal social construct”, then I guess you could say that “feminism” put you on the wrong path if you might otherwise have been perfectly happy married / stay-at-home-mom / part-time worker / etc.

Look, you’re talking to a woman who, when young, was a Thatcherite protagonist - in other words, I’m a ‘market’ girl and, to me, anti-feminism is as much ‘nonsense on stilts’ (to use one of her phrases) as feminist separatism - not just ‘nonsense on stilts’ but post hoc ergo propter hoc ‘nonsense on stilts’.

The problem people have with “feminism”, so-called, (IMHO), is not so much that it tells women that they should be given the same opportunities as men to do whatever they like in life, but that some so-called “feminists” have avowed that (1) there are no differences between men and women, and (2) not only may you strive to climb the corporate ladder and eschew traditional wife and mother thing, but that you should, and that not doing so is somehow a sign of weakness. That’s the part that gets people.

The problem with ‘feminism’ is that it’s conjured-up all sorts of casuistic bolt-holes for people who want to buck the consequences of the market but don’t want to accept that they’re the consequences of the market - it’s the privatization of ‘pain’, ie you want to avoid paying for the consequences of the market, so you blame it on something else.

 

[Kaninchen]

Ideas do have consequences.

Indeed they do - let’s try deregulation of the financial markets . . . . or all the other ‘ideas’ of the last 40 years and consider their consequences in comparison.

Porkchop2 gave a heartfelt description of the ways in which she believes that the ideas attributed to feminist philosophy worked themselves out in her own life. I’m glad she told of her experience; I’m certain that there are thousands of others who might tell similar stories.

I’m quite sure it was heartfelt, there are people who think that everything that’s ever gone wrong is the fault of any number of things they’ve decided they don’t like. Depth of hearfeltness is not a carrier of weight in analysis - except when studying heartfeltness.

It’s not particularly fair to tell her that no, whatever happened, it was all your fault. The ideas you soaked up from the general culture had nothing to do with it.

Didn’t say that - I doubted the ascription of blame on one group of naughty people.

It’s not as though we must ascribe all all historical evils simply to the inevitable movements played on a historical stage with little human involvement. Yes, people do make decisions, sometimes bad ones. Whatever happens is the result of human decisions. And ideas do have consequences. Including bad ideas. Bad ideas, spread sufficiently, affect the thinking of ordinary people.

The thing is that I don’t see the relationship in the heartfelt story to ‘feminism’ but to a kind of ‘strawwoman’ feminism - this supposed mighty force of nature that, in and of itself mind, forces women to behave in certain ways.

Ruth Kaninchen, former SAHM mum, long-time part-time professional (around school hours and holidays) . . . .

 

[Benadam]

That’s all the result of feminism is it? It’s nothing to do with the labor market at this stage of capitalism, nothing to do with the technological revolution, nothing to do with foreign competition that’s changed the nature of the industrial and financial base.

Nope, just feminism.

Riiiigggghhht

Feminism is a lousy vague term. After all it is femininity that reveals masculinity. I prefer the term ‘radical feminity’ as it differenciates and stigmatizes in the way ‘radical Islamist’ differenciates and stigmatizes it’s practitioners from a more balanced practice of the same.

Distaught feminism is more precise as I see it. Distress caused by the lack of due goods that rightfully evoke feelings of indignity. Distress suppressed and repressed just waiting for the conditions that would allow resolution. Resolution that is satisfied more by grandness than whether or not it is good for all concerned. The grand scale required isn’t inappropriate either since it parallel’s the scale of the offense.

The conditions you mentioned if experienced without the pre-existent repressed frustration among women would not have resulted in the radical outlook inaccurately labeled feminism. Admittedly certain technological advances facilitated a more scandalous environment. OTOH suppressed frustration rather than a particular condition of circumstance had the power to motivate an effective movement, movement able to entrench a radical set of values among women that has transformed western culture.

IMO the conditions you blame were the trigger but not the cause of the radical value system that emerged this century. Unfortunately the radical values that emerged didn’t heal. Not that there aren’t radical values that would it’s just that the ones adopted and are now part of our culture didn’t heal the rift that centuries of callous masculinity caused. How can anyone deny that the loss of trust and respect for men is resolved among women who abandon tradition and adopt a genderless femininity.

 

[Kaninchen]

Feminism is a lousy vague term. After all it is femininity that reveals masculinity. I prefer the term ‘radical feminity’ as it differenciates and stigmatizes in the way ‘radical Islamist’ differenciates and stigmatizes it’s practitioners from a more balanced practice of the same.

I think that one of the problems with the term ‘feminism’ is that it’s always been whatever the ‘speaker’ wants it to be - whether that ‘speaker’ is a radical lesbian separatist or a ‘masculinist’ (and/or ‘religious’ reactionary) or anywhere in between.

To me it’s the astounding idea that women are pretty much capable of doing anything and shouldn’t be prevented doing whatever our talents, ambitions and circumstances would allow us to achieve.

Distaught feminism is more precise as I see it. Distress caused by the lack of due goods that rightfully evoke feelings of indignity. Distress suppressed and repressed just waiting for the conditions that would allow resolution. Resolution that is satisfied more by grandness than whether or not it is good for all concerned. The grand scale required isn’t inappropriate either since it parallel’s the scale of the offense.

Why are you proposing that women are any different than men in our ability to have our ‘wants’ manipulated into ‘needs’? What about distraught masculinism over not getting whatever new man-toy comes along? Or are you suggesting that women need protecting from the consumer goods/advertising/image-of-what-constitutes-a-good-life-media in ways that men do not?

We’ve been living in a culture of ‘objectivization’, of manipulation of ‘wants’, of projecting the individual into seeing living her/his life in some kind of ‘life-as-soap-opera’, for far longer than second-wave feminism has been around. In that sense feminism could be said to be part of a general struggle to establish ‘meaning’ in life after the alienation of the first stages of post-War consumerism.

 

[Porkchop2]

Thank you JimG, KBT, Nyarlathotep, and others for your kind words and encouragement. You are correct Kaninchen, I made some horrible choices and should have never listened to my parents. Yes, I am a regretful former feminist warrior!

But, my Catholic Faith, prayers, and the Good Lord’s patience has opened my eyes of what is True, Beautiful, and Good! I have four beautiful, sweet children whom I now homeschool, and a wonderful husband who I have been with for 20 years, and have known for 30. I WAS caught up in the whole capitalist, materialistic mindset, and my father provided well for us, as we were seven children who all went to private schools, and had the best of everything (materialistically, that is!). I am so blessed to have opened eyes and heart now.

Life is so short, and to have this revelation at this early on, is also a blessing.

I am currently weaning my patients to other doctors, so they can get the very best help and compassion that they need, and the Holy Spirit has been with me through it all.

I appreciate all the love and support here. I am brand new, and learning how to navigate through the boards…there are a lot of topics! Thank you all for your patience…I have no experience with chat boards except a homeschooling one I belong to, so this has been a great experience for me.

Thank the Lord for this beautiful faith we have, and for his Divine Mercy (especially on me!)

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Look, you’re talking to a woman who, when young, was a Thatcherite protagonist - in other words, I’m a ‘market’ girl and, to me, anti-feminism is as much ‘nonsense on stilts’ (to use one of her phrases) as feminist separatism - not just ‘nonsense on stilts’ but post hoc ergo propter hoc ‘nonsense on stilts’.

Well, I think that – thanks to the “marketplace of ideas” we have here on this forum – we have all moved past the overly simplistic post hoc fallacy that “feminism” ==> “divorce” (or any other particular social ill).

The problem with ‘feminism’ is that it’s conjured-up all sorts of casuistic bolt-holes for people who want to buck the consequences of the market but don’t want to accept that they’re the consequences of the market - it’s the privatization of ‘pain’, ie you want to avoid paying for the consequences of the market, so you blame it on something else.

Notwithstanding (and don’t go knocking casuistry; I’m a lawyer – that’s my bread & butter!), we can’t just go around in an existentialist / absurdist haze of ennui. Isn’t the whole point of “empowerment” to seize control over our own existence? Sure, you and I may both be “consequenses” of the “market”, but we’re self-aware consequences! And as such, we can point to certain philosophies and government policies and, based on our life-experiences, make judgments about them, even if we can’t draw a direct causal arrow between the idea and the consequence. A “correlation” or “relation” is good enough for me, as long as, as you said, I’m not making some social movement a scapegoat for inequity I see in the world.

So, did feminism “cause” divorce? Sure, but so did the washer, drier, electric vacuum cleaner, dishwasher and WWII labor shortages. It just so happens that “feminism” is the only one of those things we can do anything about, as I imagine my wife wouldn’t be too pleased if I threw out our appliances.

And don’t underestimate the power of education. To teach a child that “marriage” is a disposable social construct, that motherhood is somehow “beneath” her, may very well lead that child on a path that she may not have otherwise chosen had the deck not been stacked – market factors or not. So, it was wrong to discourage our daughters from learning the sciences and entering the work force; it’s just as wrong to discourage them from becoming full-time mothers.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

To me [feminism is] the astounding idea that women are pretty much capable of doing anything and shouldn’t be prevented doing whatever our talents, ambitions and circumstances would allow us to achieve.

Right, that’s “feminism” in its purest form. Nothing harmful about that. Although, I am probably better than you at writing my name in the snow after a few beers.

We’ve been living in a culture of ‘objectivization’, of manipulation of ‘wants’, of projecting the individual into seeing living her/his life in some kind of ‘life-as-soap-opera’, for far longer than second-wave feminism has been around. In that sense feminism could be said to be part of a general struggle to establish ‘meaning’ in life after the alienation of the first stages of post-War consumerism.

Let’s then add “consumerism” and “objectivism” to our list of factors leading to the downfall of society. I’d even go out on a limb and say that the ideas of Ayn Rand were probably more harmful than those of any particular “feminist” you could name.

…and that’s where religion comes in. Whether you call it “original sin” or “yetzer ha-ra”, our human desire to sate our own wants and put ourselves first is exacerbated by our “thrownness” into the World when the World tells us that feeding our wants (re-constructed as “needs”) is the prime directive.

For the Catholics, Pope John Paul II, who was by training a metaphyisician, has written extensively on this topic. For the Jews, I’d recommend Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz’s 2-part commentary on the Tanya.

 

[PJM]

feminism is the #1 enemy of marriage and family. Feminism pressured some of the most family wrecking laws in the world, like no-fault divorce, abortion, modern divorce law and alimony(Miller v Miller) distribution of property and money, and the perversion of the roles between man and woman. Laws like these cause people to use marriage as a tool to extort money from their spouses and cause people to marry for the wrong reasons. As long as feminists continue to pervert marriage roles there will continue to be a rise in divorce rates and illegitimate children. Todays couples absolutely have no sense of roles or plan to guide their marriages and their children correctly. In the early 20th century, long before feminism reared its ugly head, the divorce rate was below 10%, and illegitimacy was rare. However, feminism taught women to have no bounds or limits in their actions and promoted propaganda that intentionally was designed to test and eventually ruin their own marriages. Sadly today its a common sight to see children being shuffled forth from mom and dad every month. Feminism also turned its sights to motherhood and sought to destroy one of the most valuable aspects of women. More and more common were children being dropped off to day-care centers and boarding schools. Children were viewed as a curse rather than a blessing. Children in the womb were not even considered humans anymore. Feminism not only seeks to de-value marriage and the role of husband and wife, but also even their own innocent kin and children. If you consider even your own children as disposable and discard-able how do you expect to have the right mind-set when taking care of them? knowing that in the past you one day considered them disposable trash? Can you imagine how this attitude can effect the mothers parenting?

With propaganda like this spreading like fire in the later 60s and 70s one can only expect a great deterioration in marriage. Lo and behold the 70s had the highest spike in divorce rates in the last 2 decades, a 35% increase in only 10 years time. No-fault divorce and abortion was shortly legalized after. Now today our country has a 55% divorce rate which is increasing. In California, which is a bastion of modernism and feminism the divorce rate is 75%. 1 week to 1 month marriages became a common thing. Same sex “marriage” started to spread. Marriage has been totally dragged into the mud today because of feminism and it gives many young women an attitude that is detrimental to any future marriages or relationships they may have. St. Paul was very clear that the usurping of the husbands position in the marriage is detrimental. And we see in todays divorce rates that that is quite true. And until feminism is abolished, abortion, same-sex unions, and divorce will always exist.

***Your insitefull post seems to let Bishops, priest and me and you off the hook of responsibility. Everyone, is gravely obligated to have a properly informed conscience.

The choice of heven and hell are real, eternal and OURS to make.

One may express concern as you have, but in the end, it’s still up to me and you to know better. That friend is how God is going to judge it.***

 

[ML561]

I am puzzled by some of these comments on this post. In fact, I am angered by people who seem to think that women are no more than wombs. God did give us BRAINS, as is exemplified by many of the women who have been canonized. Some of them, as St. Joan of Arc and St. Teresa of Avila, openly criticized the patriarchal authorities of their day.

I make no apology for my desire to work in areas where God leads me. I feel it would be a great disservice to the Lord and to the Church if I were not to use my talents as the Holy Spirit leads. I am single and most likely will remain so. I have not been called to a consecrated life as a sister, nor have I the vocation of the married state. To be honest, I love children but know that I would not be fit to raise them.

Am I a feminist? Yes indeed, and I make no apology for that. As I mentioned in a previous post, I believe firmly in the rights of women to own property, vote, and pursue whatever career they choose. Why has “feminism” become such a dirty word?

I\Does anyone out there realize that without the support of strong women, the Catholic Church would most likely collapse? Who do you think answers the telephones, gives Communion to the sick when a priest is unavailable, cooks for funeral lunches, teaches children’s Bible school, prays, and so much more.

I was told at an early age by my parents that I could do anything I put my mind to. I intend to use my MIND as the Holy Spirit prompts, and not be confined by sexist attitudes. Every time I see the words “men and women are different” all that means to me is “men are superior to women”. and I’m having none of it. Grace and Peace

 

[Kaninchen]

For the Catholics, Pope John Paul II, who was by training a metaphyisician, has written extensively on this topic. For the Jews, I’d recommend Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz’s 2-part commentary on the Tanya.

Hm, I wonder if you realize what you’ve ‘subliminally’ said there (remembering the topic of the thread)?

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Right, that’s “feminism” in its purest form. Nothing harmful about that. Although, I am probably better than you at writing my name in the snow after a few beers.

Let’s then add “consumerism” and “objectivism” to our list of factors leading to the downfall of society. I’d even go out on a limb and say that the ideas of Ayn Rand were probably more harmful than those of any particular “feminist” you could name.

…and that’s where religion comes in. Whether you call it “original sin” or “yetzer ha-ra”, our human desire to sate our own wants and put ourselves first is exacerbated by our “thrownness” into the World when the World tells us that feeding our wants (re-constructed as “needs”) is the prime directive.

For the Catholics, Pope John Paul II, who was by training a metaphyisician, has written extensively on this topic. For the Jews, I’d recommend Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz’s 2-part commentary on the Tanya.

Very well said. I would add to the reading list, anything that you can get your hands on, by Edith Stein, feminist (in the proper sense) philosopher; Jewish convert;victim of the Nazi extermination and now, a canonized Catholic Saint.(St.Teresa Benedicta of the Cross)

 

[budgie2]

Whatever girl:

I see nothing wrong with women gaining college degrees, and working outside of the home. The problem is that many women put careers first…and so have men. Our culture seems to believe that we have to keep growing our cars, houses, vacations, bank accounts, etc…without a care for family values, etc anymore. Likewise, I don’t believe in a husband working two jobs or working 15 hour days, and never see his family. Where’s the family unit in that, also?

Budgie2:
I don’t know if I fully agree with you. I think a lot of women nowadays who do go to university/college may feel pushed into full time careers and it’s more difficult for a qualified woman to stay at home to look after children. Basically it comes down to money. A woman who has gone to college may be in large debt and feel forced to pay it back. Also they may be expected to pay it back in taxation. I think if more women stayed at home with their families then female education would be cut back.

Ex-survivor of a first class degree.

 

[Benadam]

To me it’s the astounding idea that women are pretty much capable of doing anything and shouldn’t be prevented doing whatever our talents, ambitions and circumstances would allow us to achieve.

 

[budgie2]

I’ve got two managers in my family, both women, and they’re both divorced. I’ve also got an aunty who’s a psychologist and she’s a single mother and in and out of a relationship. I think they work too hard and don’t spend enough time with their husbands. That’s why they ended up divorced. My mum worked less and she had the best marriage of the lot so I’ve always looked up to my mum.

 

[Kaninchen]

I agree. It’s sad that women even have to say something like that. Wouldn’t you say that those words rise out of some injustice?

I think it pays to be constantly wary.

Of course women are capable, shouldn’t be prevented, and allowed to achieve. What you really mean is men have made women feel incapable, have been prevented, and not allowed, by whom? Men , who else?All these words are attached to feelings kept under wraps for generations. They are still under wap to the degree that men are the unspoken but only possible source of these injustices.

I think blaming ‘men’ (as a ‘class’) is not really the point - it was systemic and paradigmatic.

I only propose that men do not have a history of injustice suffered at the hands of women. I know you are going to broil at my next comment but bare with me. It is not natural for a man to ‘need’ a woman. It is natural for a woman to need a man. That reality about us formed at the dawn of our history.

With our primate relations, everybody just lives with mom until they reach maturity so I think we should be rather careful about what we consider ‘natural’!

Our most primordial and natural experiences. We were hunter gatherers just a blink of an eye ago. It is our primordial experience. A time when what formed us as natural human beings was at the same time fulfilled. IThe roles that naturally fulfilled then became the roles that we strove to keep so that as we shifted from hunter gatherers to farmers whatever differentiated the two forms of survival the foundational social structures would remain.

It could be argued that, with farming came ‘property’ and inheritance which changed the nature of how men viewed women.

As hunter gatherers the man was equipped to meet his own needs. I’m refering to real needs not wants or desires. A woman on the other hand wasn’t so well equipped. Women needed men for the basic needs of survival.

You missed the ‘gathering’ part of the economy - they were ‘hunter-gatherer’ societies, it’s likely that the basic needs were from gathering (women) rather than hunting (male).

That is why a woman will eventually lose respect for a man that is emotionally needy.

The emotionally needy of both sexes are trying.

I believe you’re spot on there. I see the modern manifestation of feminism in the early 20th century in the 'suffrage movement. A more authentic feminism but still repressed. It hasn’t been a hundred years yet that women have had the right to vote.

The big difference really came with domestic goods - things like vacuum cleaners and washing machines which liberated the mass of women from domestic drudgery.

I think part of the problem is to look at a particular stage of human history and say that it was, in some way, the ‘state of nature’. For most people, historically, as soon as you were capable of any work (weeding, say) you began to work - ‘childhood’, as we know it, was really a relatively recent invention and that in the middle classes - and the family was an enterprise where everybody did whatever work was necessary on the farm or the business, given the high level of early death in both husbands and wives, the family as an enterprise was tremendously important. Then, with the industrial revolution, both little boys and girls went into the factories.

So, it was 19th Century middle class women who became the paradigm for the ‘normal’ homemaker but it was just a paradigm, it had nothing to do with ‘nature’.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

As hunter gatherers the man was equipped to meet his own needs. I’m refering to real needs not wants or desires. A woman on the other hand wasn’t so well equipped. Women needed men for the basic needs of survival. That is why a woman will eventually lose respect for a man that is emotionally needy. Also why women suffer the ‘bad men’ syndrome imo. It is a cartoon image of the primordial man that she could lean on and gain a sense of security because he never needed anything. She experienced a fulfillment of her femininity pleasing him not because he needed her but because he didn’t. If he did she couldn’t feel wanted.

Astute observation. You know, you’d be surprised (or maybe you wouldn’t) at the number of clients I have (met another yesterday for example) whose primary motivation for seeking divorce is simply that their husbands are too “emotionally needy.” No extra-marital affair, no money problems, it’s just that, often over a period of years, they’ve regressed into a juvenile, dependant state, wherein they have come to rely entirely on their wives, are constantly seeking affirmation and validation, and for the wives, there’s nothing left to respect, and nothing left to love. And who can blame them for wanting “out” of such a marriage? (On the other extreme, the “primordial man” is also more likely to be a cheater, abusive, etc).

The environment and conditions we find ourselves in now have vastly changed from the primordial environment and conditions that formed us. But we still desire stimulus that our primordial environment contained. That is the forgotten humanity that is vehemently denied by a radical feminism and because of that denial a radical female percieves and projects a distortion of masculinity as well.

Adam was not male untill his masculinity was revealed by the presence of a female. This dynamic is the foundation of harmony between men and women and it’s the distortion of that revelation that is at the root of the disharmony we suffer as well. Attempts to blur the distinctions, and I’m not meaning the shifting of duties within family roles to meet changing needs, but distinctions that if blurred render us void , lacking, and in denial as we convince ourselves that the mechanisms to cope with the emptiness are making us happy.

It is unfortunate that some who advocate recognizing the “differences” between the sexes are those who would seek to subordinate one over the other. In light of the racial policies of the 20th century, most Americans have an inherant suspicion of anything that starts to sound like “separate but equal”. But you’re right, we are different (thank God!). And you don’t have to pretend that men and women are merely differently-shaped (again, thank God!) “persons” who are otherwise fungible. You can vote and own property and be a doctor, CEO, President (or PM, Ruth!), and do anything which, through God, or your own efforts, you could hope to achieve.

But those who seek to obliterate differences often have another agenda, which is somewhat disengenuous. If men and women are different, than they bring different things to the table as parents. And if either a mother or a father is lacking, is not something lacking for the child as well? Those who do not view the Mother-Father-Children paradigm as the “ideal” are threatened by the idea of gender differences, because it means that the single-mother, single-father, or homosexual couple “family” is less than “ideal.”

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

So, it was 19th Century middle class women who became the paradigm for the ‘normal’ homemaker but it was just a paradigm, it had nothing to do with ‘nature’.

Couldn’t it be said the the"natural’ paradigm of the “normal” homemaker has only shifted (as paradigms are wont to do) since the Beginning? If you want to go all the way back in history,** woman** was made to be man’s “helpmate”, right? Shouldn’t women, who are* naturally designed to be the childbearers, be the homemakers too? That seems like the** natural*** way… Obviously, not all women have been inclined or chosen or destined for this “office”, but most of us have.
And what’s this reference to “domestic drudgery”? If some women were/are oppressed systematically by a certain class of dominant men, that’s a real pity and a sin. But I think it more than a bit presumptuous to say that all women, therefore, have a seemingly ‘natural’ disdain for the “domestic arts”. In fact I would even be so bold as to say that the “normal” homemaker has sustained the whole balance of human development and ingenuity, through the centuries, by her sacrifice, nurture and*** truly*** feminine qualities, not to mention her maternal predilection.
Furthermore, it is one of the most privileged, and honorable vocations that women are* naturally* set apart, to be exalted for, along with so many other inherent gifts.
In all humility,*** this*** homemaker is most grateful for being given this beautiful blessing. (and I’m **still working on my "Master’s in the Domestic Arts" after 25 years!)

 

[budgie2]

I think women can fulfil their talents in the home too. Many women seek to use their talents in an immoral manner through the use of birth control. God gave us our talents for a reason. He wouldn’t give me talents if he didn’t expect me to use them but I don’t need to commit a sin to be fulfilled. In fact sin stops me from being fulfilled.

The difference is nowadays women expect to be paid in monetary terms for everything that they do whereas in the past they were expected to use them voluntarily.

In terms of female education, education is mainly financial. Although I would like to be educated for love of learning, the reality is that most people expect an education to be reflected in salary. Using one’s qualifications to educate your own children alone is not an acceptable option in the eyes’ of society although acceptable in the eyes of God. It is important that women cut their education back.