Feminist ideals behind birth control

[Rence]

Ok first of all I’m suprised at the responses I’m getting because I thought everyone in the traditional catholic forum agreed with Humanae Vitae. I thought everyone agreed that even NFP must be used under a GRAVE reason- I didn’t invent that. I’m unsure if wanting to be able to send a child to a prestigious catholic university justifies a GRAVE reason to postpone pregnancy??? Guess I was wrong.

Sending children to college (regardless of whether it is presigious or not) is a parental responsibility that depends on one’s culture and yes, GRAVE reasons will vary from family to family. What you are inventing are those GRAVE reasons. GRAVE reasons need to be determined by each and every family for themselves, and if possible, with consultation of their priest, not by you (with all due respect). I think that once you understand that GRAVE reasons which include economics according to Humanae Vitae, you will be at better peace with yourself and the world around you. You don’t need to be at risk of losing your life to practice NFP to avoid pregnancies. It includes other reasons too.

Second, you mention the expense of law school. With all due respect, what is more important, a law degree or welcoming another child into the world? What do you say to some of these Catholic families in Latin America or Africa who are raising children on literally $5 or less a day? Maybe we should learn something from their sacrifice?

If subjecting yourself, your spouse and your children to this kind of lifestyle voluntarily is the choice you want to make, go for it. It’s not my choice in any way. Humanae Vitae in no way suggests to live in poverty and to sacrifice to that extent just to have more children. That is just your wish.

Third, its not about people who agree/disagree with me. Its about following the teachings of the church and avoiding mortal sin. The Catholic Church teaches that using ABC, blowing of mass, pre-marital sex, masturbation etc. are mortal sins.

However, it does not teach that women should be uneducated, unemployed and have to stay at home with the sole career of baby-making.

 

[Rence]

10 or 12 kids is pretty rare and you know it. Also, I never said 10 or 12 was some kind of ideal number. Why is it the parents responsibility to pay for the young adult’s college tuition? Yes, it would be great if it could happen but whats more important- getting a degree in four years and delaying life or asking the young adult to work/take out a loan so life can be given? There is nothing wrong with sending kids to public schools if catholic schools aren’t an option. Most of the catholic schools today teach a watered down catholicism anyway…I speak from experience.

Are you suggesting that it is more important to churn out the largest number of children possible, not provide for their eduction and just leave them to their own devices when they grow into adults without the ability to function in society at their optimal? Keep in mind that even city and state colleges and universities are costly, and even moreso when there are many children to educate.

 

[Rence]

Thanks for the replies so far. I have talked to a priest and he said I was not committing a sin by using NFP. My husband is not Catholic (or any religion, for that matter) and does not want anymore children.

The thing about NFP is you always hear you can used it for a “serious/grave” reason…but every time someone mentions it on here, they are told (at least what I have read) that their reason is not “grave”? So who gets to determine this? If I got pregnant again, that would be okay. But I don’t want to purposely try to get pregnant at the same time.

Those people who say that others (like you) do not have grave enough reason are in error. Online forums can give opinions and share their thoughts, but are not appropriate to determine for families if reasons are grave or not. The family itself is the appropriate party to determine grave reason, and with consultation of their priest if need be. Listen to your priest, not online forums. They mean well, but they don’t know you, your family or your sitution like your priest does. I’m sure there are quite few members on this forum who would have your situation and would try to have another child (not only not use NFP to avoid), and others that would be pushed over the edge with an addition. All families are unique.

 

[floresco]

While it’s true that young, single woman in some areas of the country are paid higher than same aged counterpart… You will find they are also WAY more educated. So, all variables ARE NOT equal. And that men with children still make more $$ than women with kids. And since this topic is with regard to children… Surely you don’t begrudge an unmarried, childless woman a way to feed herself? And well, the fact that she’s actually better at her job than most men…

I can just imagine the outrage if a man claimed that men were better workers.

Anyhow, anyone interested in this subject should look into the writing and research of Warren Farrell, for example his book Why Men Earn More. There is also a lot of information on his web site, warrenfarrell.net/Summary/index.html such as this summary statement: Men earn more than women, but not for the same work—for 25 different workplace choices. Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

Basically differences in pay have nothing to do with oppression of women but are due to different choices of men and women. A woman who has children is likely to become less focused on her outside job in order to have more time and energy for children. This is consistent with a woman’s basic nature as a nurturer. The man’s basic nature is to be the provider. When he has children he makes the work place choices that will bring in more money.

 

[notredame_999]

Many women suffered because they didn’t have the freedom to pursue their dreams of other vocations. To deny that is just silly. Some women thrive on running a household and do it quite well (in any generation), and others are better suited to working outside the home. I can’t even imagine living in a world where I didn’t have a choice and was bound by what a man decided for me. Actually, no offense, and with a respect, the thought of the men in my life having a say over my futre just disgusts me. I thank God every day for the freedoms I enjoy and the choices I have at my disposal, and the opportunities that are open to me that would not have been 50 years ago.

In matters of women having equal opportunities, yes, absolutely. I am positive that I have it better than my oppressed grandmother and great-grandmother.

Women can do any job that a man can do. To say they can’t is just immature. Women make just as good lawyers, doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, teachers, police officers, etc. as men. Their nature makes them just as able as a man to work outside the home.

No, I see good socialization oppportunities in daycares if that’s the choice the parents make for their children. Just like home-schooling and stay-at-home-moms, it all has it’s place in the appropriate home. There is no one way to have and manage a family.

1.) Women cannot do any job that man can do. Do you think women in the military should see combat just like a man? Because if you do think so, you are contradicting 2000 years of Catholic tradition. Most traditional catholics who grew up before the sexual revolution I doubt even approve of female cops. I know I don’t. Let me give you my perspective by presenting some arguments posted by well known traditional catholic Patrick J. Buchanan more articulate then myself. If you don’t like them fine, but now you know where I’m coming from.

On Women
2007: “The rise of women to power in a civilization is very often the mark of its decline.”

– On The McLaughlin Group, July 6, 2007
2002: “In short, the rise of feminism spells the death of the nation and end of the West.”

– Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, P. 42
2002: "What is going to convert American women to wanting what their mothers wanted and grandmothers prayed for: a good man, a home in the suburbs, and a passel of kids? Sounds almost quaint.”

– Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, P. 47
1983: “Rail as they will against ‘discrimination,’ women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism…The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is.”

• Washington Times. November 18, 1983

 

[floresco]

Actually, no offense, and with a respect, the thought of the men in my life having a say over my futre just disgusts me. I thank God every day for the freedoms I enjoy and the choices I have at my disposal, and the opportunities that are open to me that would not have been 50 years ago.

Marriage is a loss of freedom for both the husband and wife. It is joining one’s life to another’s and giving that person a say in all one’s major decisions. If the thought of a spouse having a say over your future disgusts you, then you should not get married.

 

[Julianna]

I can just imagine the outrage if a man claimed that men were better workers.

Anyhow, anyone interested in this subject should look into the writing and research of Warren Farrell, for example his book Why Men Earn More. There is also a lot of information on his web site, warrenfarrell.net/Summary/index.html such as this summary statement: Men earn more than women, but not for the same work—for 25 different workplace choices. Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an **undesirable location on-demand **(women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

Basically differences in pay have nothing to do with oppression of women but are due to different choices of men and women. A woman who has children is likely to become less focused on her outside job in order to have more time and energy for children. This is consistent with a woman’s basic nature as a nurturer. The man’s basic nature is to be the provider. When he has children he makes the work place choices that will bring in more money.

have you checked the stats on women truck drivers lately? Great money. Have you seen the petite woman who drives a truck on Ice Road Truckers? How many women are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to their duties as a Marine, a Soldier, an Airman or a Sailor? I think Iraq is a very undesireable location. I guess you missed JR Reductions post about MEN needing to step up and spend more time with their children and basically not leave their wives alone as sole “nuturer”. Women are not caged animals. Seems you would like a wife like those in the Middle East…they have no choice, no education, so say, not allowed to drive, a piece of property. How sad…and good luck finding an “American woman” who will do you bidding.

 

[notredame_999]

This is my last post. I’m getting too upset over this stupid online thing, its not good for my faith. I realize I have touched a nerve here because I have linked the rationale behind artificial birth control to feminism, and this generation has been lead to believe that a woman can do anything a man can do. This is what I sent to another member in a private message…
"don’t understand how traditional catholics can talk about not using abc without talking about traditional gender roles- which means a mother at home. The two issues go hand in hand. Does this mean all women will stay in the home? Of course not, and I never said that. All I meant to say was that in the vocation of marriage a woman’s PRIMARY role is mother, but that doesn’t mean she can’t have other roles. "

With that said, God bless.

 

[Julianna]

1.) Women cannot do any job that man can do. Do you think women in the military should see combat just like a man? Because if you do think so, you are contradicting 2000 years of Catholic tradition. Most traditional catholics who grew up before the sexual revolution I doubt even approve of female cops. I know I don’t. Let me give you my perspective by presenting some arguments posted by well known traditional catholic Patrick J. Buchanan more articulate then myself. If you don’t like them fine, but now you know where I’m coming from.

On Women
2007: “The rise of women to power in a civilization is very often the mark of its decline.”

– On The McLaughlin Group, July 6, 2007
2002: “In short, the rise of feminism spells the death of the nation and end of the West.”

– Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, P. 42
2002: "What is going to convert American women to wanting what their mothers wanted and grandmothers prayed for: a good man, a home in the suburbs, and a passel of kids? Sounds almost quaint.”

– Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, P. 47
1983: “Rail as they will against ‘discrimination,’ women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism…The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is.”

• Washington Times. November 18, 1983

As someone who works for Uncle Sam and sees Marines of both genders…don’t kid yourself…women see combat and they serve aboard ships when called upon, they fly jets and are just as capable as a man…it’s called “rigorous training”. Kind of what Joan of Arc went through. Well I guess she should have stayed int he French countryside and kept house. Female cops is brought to by “equal opportunity under the law”…just this weekend you are enjoying is brought to you by the Labor Movement…the folks who brought you the weekend. As for Mr. Buchanan…he has done quite a back peddle since the war started. Also…maybe he should tell his sister to keep her mouth shut and go home and make a pot roast. I doubt James Carville would have the guts to say that to his uber Republican wife Mary Matilin. But then the ragin’ cajun’
respects his wife. Maybe Rosalyn Carter should be sitting home instead of putting shingles on a roof so a family can have a home.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What do you say to some of these Catholic families in Latin America or Africa who are raising children on literally $5 or less a day? Maybe we should learn something from their sacrifice?

Whoa. Hold it right there. “Learn from their sacrifice”? Are you aware of the amazingly high rate of amateur abortions being conducted in Latin America, daily, for those mothers “who are raising children on literally $5 or less a day?” That’s the entire problem: They can’t afford more such children, particularly since so many of those husbands virtually or actually abandon those wives, and/or engage in extramarital affairs which is far less punishable in the machismo of Latin American culture than having an abortion is. The wife is supposed to just suck-it-up (as a U.S.Drill Sergeant would say), but often neither the husband nor the State is providing her much, if any, moral support, financial support, etc.

The abortion rate in Latin America, for married women, is huge. I used to know the figure. So much for the romanticized version of events the Catholic Church likes to spin about Latin America, in the Church’s ignorance of fundamental ***cultural and economic problems that severely affect the rate of abortions ***-- internationally, hardly just limited to Latin America.

I will point out again the obvious: abortion is illegal in countries which nevertheles continue to have a high rate of abortion. (That was a sidebar.)

In countries where women are given opportunities behind baby-making and homemaking, two things happen:
(1) contraception, if made available prior to or concurrently, increases.
Simultaneously:
(2) abortions – including in countries where it is “illegal” – dramatically decrease.

 

[floresco]

I often wonder if we understand parenthood, for males and females. It is not the duty of the woman to be the parent and the man to be the provider. Both are called to be parents. Each parent does a part. To dump the sole responsibility of raising a family on the mother is contrary to God’s plan for parents.

This is an unfortunate choice of words. You place providing in opposition to parenting which is simply not how it works. Providing is a crucial aspect of parenting and an extremely important responsibility. Parenting involves both providing and nurturing. Both aspects are essential for the well-being children.

A man whose primary contribution to parenting is providing has no more abandoned his responsibility than a woman whose primary contribution to parenting is nurturing. This is a perfectly reasonable division of labour and works well in many families. If you want to know what a mother having sole responsibility raising a family really looks like, then think of a single mother who is being both provider and nurturer.

 

[Julianna]

Marriage is a loss of freedom for both the husband and wife. It is joining one’s life to another’s and giving that person a say in all one’s major decisions. If the thought of a spouse having a say over your future disgusts you, then you should not get married.

My husband and I decide things “together”…always.

**And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.
**

 

[floresco]

****have you checked the stats on women truck drivers lately? Great money. Have you seen the petite woman who drives a truck on Ice Road Truckers? How many women are in Iraq and Afghanistan due to their duties as a Marine, a Soldier, an Airman or a Sailor? I think Iraq is a very undesireable location. ****

You do not seem to have understood Farrell’s point. He is not saying that women cannot do the sorts of jobs that bring more income. He is saying the men choose them more often which is why the statistics show that men overall earn more money. The whole point of his book is that women who want to earn more can do so by making the same choices as men.

Whether this is good advice for Catholics is another question. But it is no use discussing this question until you understand this first point.

 

[Julianna]

This is my last post. I’m getting too upset over this stupid online thing, its not good for my faith. I realize I have touched a nerve here because I have linked the rationale behind artificial birth control to feminism, and this generation has been lead to believe that a woman can do anything a man can do. This is what I sent to another member in a private message…
"don’t understand how traditional catholics can talk about not using abc without talking about traditional gender roles- which means a mother at home. The two issues go hand in hand. Does this mean all women will stay in the home? Of course not, and I never said that. All I meant to say was that in the vocation of marriage a woman’s PRIMARY role is mother, but that doesn’t mean she can’t have other roles. "

With that said, God bless.

Whoa there. I don’t and yeah I can speak for the other women on here…don’t want you to leave. You have every right to make your point. I disagree, but without thoughts and (name removed by moderator)ut from others…we never learn from each other.

I am 52 yrs young and still have much to learn. Beware of absolutes…they can box you into something and having you wish you were out. You are human…never forget that.

If you are looking for a “real woman”…a “helpmate” as in EVE…that is what you will find. If you are looking for a “slave” that is what you will find. I am my husband’s helpmate. If “we” are struggling…and he is “feeling” the struggle…I help him out and visa versa. We don’t take from each other…we give. It’s never 50/50…no such thing.

Notredame…there were silly things that I took for granted that my husband took “care of”. When he was diagnosed with MS…he could no longer bring the groceries from the car to the house…because he can’t walk well. So, “I” do that now. Did I resent it…oh yeah…at times I did. But when I think of our Blessed Mother and what she went through…carrying groceries from the car to the house (we don’t have a garage) is not such a big deal. I have never been behind a lawn mower in my life…but ya know, notredame…I just might have to. I am his helpmate…this is what I do. He has done so much for me…by “asking me what I would like”…or “pitching in when I had a c-section with both kids”…and changing his work shift to second shift…so I could sleep in case the baby woke up during the night…he could also spend “time” with the kids when they were babies. I was beside him before the MS hit renovating this house…he hammered and sawed…I painted and stained. There are things I do now that 10 yrs ago…I would have never done. I love the man God has chosen for me and I am grateful for the marriage He has blessed us with.

Now…it’s my turn to step up “more” to the plate…because I promised “in sickness and health, for richer for poorer”.

You may think I am a feminist relativist…thanks…sounds like me.

 

[floresco]

This is my last post. I’m getting too upset over this stupid online thing, its not good for my faith. I realize I have touched a nerve here because I have linked the rationale behind artificial birth control to feminism, and this generation has been lead to believe that a woman can do anything a man can do.

I knew how this thread was going to go from the moment I read your first post. It is very upsetting. I think you handled it remarkably well. It is hard to deal with people attributing positions to you that you do not hold and making personal attacks. And this is where criticism of feminism always seems to end up. I really meant to keep out of it, but I can never resist helping someone fighting against the odds. Maybe if you stop posting, I will be able to let this go too.

 

[Rence]

1.) Women cannot do any job that man can do.

Yes they can. Look around you.

Do you think women in the military should see combat just like a man?

If they choose to, yes.

Because if you do think so, you are contradicting 2000 years of Catholic tradition.

That’s utter nonsense. There is no such “Catholic tradition”. The Church says nothing about a woman being a police officer, armed forces officer, parole officer, etc. The Church says nothing about a woman being or not being in combat. These are just your notions, not Church tradition.

Most traditional catholics who grew up before the sexual revolution I doubt even approve of female cops. I know I don’t. Let me give you my perspective

Yes, “your perspective”. And I’m sure that your perspective is shared by others, just like others share the perspective that chocolate pie is better than cherry pie. It’s still your perspective rather than “right” or “wrong” or “church teaching” or “church tradition”.

 

[Rence]

Marriage is a loss of freedom for both the husband and wife. It is joining one’s life to another’s and giving that person a say in all one’s major decisions. If the thought of a spouse having a say over your future disgusts you, then you should not get married.

Marriage is a team effort not a slave/master situation. And I said nothing about the thought of a spouse having a say over my future disgusting me, however, it sure does sound disgusting when put that way because a loving husband would not demand something of a wife (such as quitting a job when the wife wants to work). What I said was, " the thought of the men in my life having a say over my futre just disgusts me". To be more specific, because you obviously misunderstood what I said: It disgusts me to think that women were deprived of education and jobs at the whim of men around them. The thought of someone’s father, brothers, uncles, etc. denying a woman a high school education, or a college education, or a vocation, disgusts me. That has nothing to do with the cooperation involved in a marriage. The same as I would not make unreasonable demands of a husband, I would expect the same common courtesy.

 

[faithfully]

I can just imagine the outrage if a man claimed that men were better workers.

Anyhow, anyone interested in this subject should look into the writing and research of Warren Farrell, for example his book Why Men Earn More. There is also a lot of information on his web site, warrenfarrell.net/Summary/index.html such as this summary statement: Men earn more than women, but not for the same work—for 25 different workplace choices. Men’s choices lead to men earning more money; women’s choices lead to women having better lives.

Men’s trade-offs include working more hours (women typically work more at home); taking more-hazardous assignments (cab-driving; construction; trucking); moving overseas or to an undesirable location on-demand (women’s greater family obligations inhibit this); and training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (e.g., engineering).

Women’s choices appear more likely to involve a balance between work and the rest of life. Women are more likely to balance income with a desire for safety, fulfillment, potential for personal growth, flexibility and proximity-to-home. These lifestyle advantages lead to more people competing for these jobs and thus lower pay.

Basically differences in pay have nothing to do with oppression of women but are due to different choices of men and women. A woman who has children is likely to become less focused on her outside job in order to have more time and energy for children. This is consistent with a woman’s basic nature as a nurturer. The man’s basic nature is to be the provider. When he has children he makes the work place choices that will bring in more money.

Those are great stats and all. But I live in the Bay Area, and have been in HR for a while. I have watched men get job offers for IDENTICAL jobs, get offered more money out the gate… with the same quals… I have had managers TELL me they won’t hire my candidate, the only qualified one they had with the response “because she has children… we don’t want to deal with that.”

All people including men make choices about what they will endure for work… and salaries will reflect that… I still see a difference in male and female salaries given similar variables… But hey, that’s just my personal experience. It could be in a vaccumm

 

[faithfully]

This is an unfortunate choice of words. You place providing in opposition to parenting which is simply not how it works. Providing is a crucial aspect of parenting and an extremely important responsibility. Parenting involves both providing and nurturing. Both aspects are essential for the well-being children.

A man whose primary contribution to parenting is providing has no more abandoned his responsibility than a woman whose primary contribution to parenting is nurturing. This is a perfectly reasonable division of labour and works well in many families. If you want to know what a mother having sole responsibility raising a family really looks like, then think of a single mother who is being both provider and nurturer.

I see parenting as a 24/7 job.

So, it stands to reason that the hours Dad is at work, that’s his job. 8-5pm
And while he’s gone, mom works with kids, house, etc. 8-5pm

Surely, It’s not just mom who takes care of the kids and household 5pm-8am… althouth that happens a lot. And what about weekends?

So, Show me the equality in that division of time…

 

[faithfully]

This is my last post. I’m getting too upset over this stupid online thing, its not good for my faith. I realize I have touched a nerve here because I have linked the rationale behind artificial birth control to feminism, and this generation has been lead to believe that a woman can do anything a man can do. This is what I sent to another member in a private message…
"don’t understand how traditional catholics can talk about not using abc without talking about traditional gender roles- which means a mother at home. The two issues go hand in hand. Does this mean all women will stay in the home? Of course not, and I never said that. All I meant to say was that in the vocation of marriage a woman’s PRIMARY role is mother, but that doesn’t mean she can’t have other roles. "

With that said, God bless.

If your faith can be shaken by an online forum. Yes, you should get off. You can not jeppardize your soul!