Has women in the work force helped or hurt the family?

[Katie966]

saying something has been a bad development (meaning generally so) does not mean it has been 100% bad with no advantages. I don’t think anyone would try to say that. There are very, very few things which are 100% bad in life, and you simply have to work with whether or not it is a majority good or majority bad, and plan accordingly. Once again, if a statement is made about “the family”, the question has to be answered generally.

It’s not even always wise to treat every situation individually because its: a. impossible to do on a large scale and b. assumes that every single family is so uniquely different that they can never be compared to or take advice from how another family or culture functions. That is not to discount that there might be circumstances where what is generally true is not true for a specific family, but the danger in immediately discounting general advice is the attitude “oh, that doesn’t apply to me” and ignoring that the general principles which promote a family best really don’t change.

I agree, except that yes, on this thread over and over a few people (but not most) did say that it was definitively bad, period. This is what my comment was addressing. I would say the same about anyone who answered “good” and that “all mothers should work outside the home”. It’s very different to say “In general, I think it is ideal for a mother to stay home with her children” than it is to say “Women being in the workforce has caused x, y, or z.” A statement of causality without some kind of data is useless and contributes little to a discussion.

I also agree that there is a place for generalizations- of course we can’t always encompass every potential situation. But trying to get a very specific answer to a very general question, as the OP was trying to do, doesn’t work.

 

[Katie966]

The two are not necessarily contradictory. On one hand, all families are unique. But on the other, society does improve or worsen, or at least, aspects of it do, and the trend depends on the broad conduct of masses of people.

That is why questions of “what is best” or “what should people do” are usually answered generally, as in “it is wrong to kill or neighbor.” Everyone understands that in exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary.

Except that in your example, “do not kill” is a moral imperative. These are the same for everyone, male and female.

Not only that, but if you are going to say “society improves” or “society is worsened”, there has to be some sort of definition of terms and a measurable outcome. And a causal relationship established. Anecdotes don’t serve this purpose.

It is not just an “exceptional” circumstance that working is necessary for a woman. Especially when she is not a mother or even a wife. What would you consider an “exceptional” circumstance?

 

[Warrenton]

:How about we just blame it all on Dr. Spock? He seems like a better scapegoat than working women don’t you think

I do! It’s a sad commentary that people felt they needed Dr Spock in the first place. It reflects a loss of common sense among the people.

Not having framed the thread, I answered the questions as they were posed.

But speaking to the gist of your spirited defense of the working woman generally, I would ask: “What are the problems that beset the modern Catholic family?” Then I would ask, “What can we do to alleviate them?”

Within that framework, I venture we would come up with hundreds of suggestions before we would arrive at the point where we suggest working women stay home.

Hopefully, based on my previous posts, you would see that next to suggesting women stay home, I would urge men to do the same. The balance between the amount of work we perform for our own interests and the interests of others is wrong, and we cannot fix it on one side of the gender divide only.

This is evident, since that the origin of the present crisis lies prior to women entering the wage market en masse.

 

[ChiRho]

I agree, except that yes, on this thread over and over a few people (but not most) did say that it was definitively bad, period. This is what my comment was addressing. I would say the same about anyone who answered “good” and that “all mothers should work outside the home”. It’s very different to say “In general, I think it is ideal for a mother to stay home with her children” than it is to say “Women being in the workforce has caused x, y, or z.” A statement of causality without some kind of data is useless and contributes little to a discussion.

I also agree that there is a place for generalizations- of course we can’t always encompass every potential situation. But trying to get a very specific answer to a very general question, as the OP was trying to do, doesn’t work.

I think I can agree with most of this

 

[Warrenton]

Except that in your example, “do not kill” is a moral imperative. These are the same for everyone, male and female.

That’s valid, and I do not mean to suggest that killing is on the same moral plane as working. I do think,however, that the thread questions imply a moral imperative that we should strive to improve society.

If not, then it is irrelevant in Catholic outlook whether society improves or not. We would shrug our shoulders and say, “Who cares if it goes to blazes in a handbasket?”

As I mentioned in the post above this one, I analyse the whole enquiry differently than the OP.

To me, we start not with “what does society need?” but with the more fundamental question, “What do people live by,” and “How much money do people need?”

The good part about my approach is that it affords greater clarity, and allows us to consider individual cases more flexibly.

That bad part is that it requires us to question the society we live in and the values that are given us.

As the beloved revolutionary leader Muhammar Qadaffi is teaching, the powerful do not appreciate questioning, if it leads to actual change.

 

[Katie966]

That’s valid, and I do not mean to suggest that killing is on the same moral plane as working. I do think,however, that the thread questions imply a moral imperative that we should strive to improve society.

If not, then it is irrelevant in Catholic outlook whether society improves or not. We would shrug our shoulders and say, “Who cares if it goes to blazes in a handbasket?”

As I mentioned in the post above this one, I analyse the whole enquiry differently than the OP.

To me, we start not with “what does society need?” but with the more fundamental question, “What do people live by,” and “How much money do people need?”

The good part about my approach is that it affords greater clarity, and allows us to consider individual cases more flexibly.

That bad part is that it requires us to question the society we live in and the values that are given us.

As the beloved revolutionary leader Muhammar Qadaffi is teaching, the powerful do not appreciate questioning, if it leads to actual change.

This I can agree with! Sometimes, we aren’t asking the right questions.

 

[trinichiqn]

That’s valid, and I do not mean to suggest that killing is on the same moral plane as working. I do think,however, that the thread questions imply a moral imperative that we should strive to improve society.

If not, then it is irrelevant in Catholic outlook whether society improves or not. We would shrug our shoulders and say, “Who cares if it goes to blazes in a handbasket?”

As I mentioned in the post above this one, I analyse the whole enquiry differently than the OP.
**
To me, we start not with “what does society need?” but with the more fundamental question, “What do people live by,” and “How much money do people need?”**

The good part about my approach is that it affords greater clarity, and allows us to consider individual cases more flexibly.

That bad part is that it requires us to question the society we live in and the values that are given us.

As the beloved revolutionary leader Muhammar Qadaffi is teaching, the powerful do not appreciate questioning, if it leads to actual change.

This thought process is all well and good but some people (men and women) work for emotional and mental well being. Some people work to do good and change lives. Some people’s jobs don’t pay them enough but they do it because they love it and what they get out of it that is not monetary.

 

[Sullibe]

Yeah…

Last summer and this winter we had a hard time booking a room for 3 kids 2 adults. We don’t need 2 rooms. I feel uncomfortable saying we only have 2.

And we aren’t a huge family.

If you need help in this matter, check this site out. We love it!
sixsuitcasetravel.com/

It doesn’t have stuff everywhere, and there are still hotels that keep popping up with expanded room, but it helps significantly in searches. Expedia also lets you put up to 4 kids in a room when searching for hotels to help find inexpensive ones.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

In general what I see in society are a bunch of people trying to live beyond their means, and thus they have to work two jobs to pay for it. Too many people are trying for the “American Dream” and end up with massive debt. Again, it’s so firmly entrenched in society now that it’s very difficult to get out of it. We are pressured into attending college because we think that we can’t get a job without it or that we’re not “educated” and right away there’s a huge debt and one person working is going to have a hard time paying off two college debts. I’m not saying I don’t understand why [some] people go to work when we’re in this rut, or that it isn’t absolutely necessary at times. What I don’t understand is why people leave their children alone to go to work when they don’t have to. And affording that extra-large house or second brand new car is NOT a have-to situation that forces the second parent to go to work.

I will also state again that two parents working limits job opportunities for those families that don’t even have one parent working. Really, there shouldn’t be a need to find statistics for this as it’s purely common sense. If there are a hundred jobs and eighty couples, it stands to reason that not all of them can be working. If out of those eighty families, forty have both parents working, that’s eighty jobs taken and twenty left for the remaining forty couples. Granted, women working does add a few jobs to society, such as more openings for babysitters and a need for more restaurant workers, however, those jobs are not jobs that are productive to a society - they are just more service jobs.

And one example from real life. My mother always stayed home with me and my siblings when we were growing up. I was always really grateful for that after watching everyone else being shipped to babysitters. My father, however, generally worked so late every week that I really didn’t see him except on weekends for the longest time. When I got older, I understood that it was something he had to do because he was working to support the family, but when I was a young child who did not fully understand the situation, I resenting hardly seeing him. I can’t imagine what little children feel like when they are left alone by both parents on a constant basis to be tended by strangers. Now, once a week I’m at a place that has a daycare center and I see two older women trying to take care of about thirty two-year olds. It is quite obvious to me that they cannot give the children the individual attention that they require at that age, nor are they qualified to do so considering they are not the parents. Honestly, I feel really sorry for those children. So IF the mother working is not absolutely necessary is it really worth the risk of resentment in the child, improper development, and precious family time (which you won’t get back) for a few more luxuries? Ask yourself that.

All this reminds me of the joke about the woman who hired a babysitter to come watch her child while she went to work at the daycare center…

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I feel this way too- I think that Pius XII was responding to a different time and culture, where the issues were not quite the same. Not to say that none of his thoughts are applicable, but the circumstances of women and families in general are very different today, and even Pius XII might make some revisions if he were around now.

I stand by my opinion that what works for one family is not necessarily what is best for another. So making a generalized statement that all women should work exclusively in the home, or that women who work outside the home are somehow responsible for the downfall of society, I think takes things too far and is narrow-minded.

Actually, I tend to hear the argument a lot that “that old teaching can be ignored because we’re in a different age”. These tend to be the same people who believe that the Church should “get with the times”. What Pius XII wrote regarding working women is just as applicable today as it was back then. One can’t just pitch everything prior to Vatican II, though I understand there are a good deal of people who want to. Sorry, but morals (and human nature) don’t change.

I also find it funny that someone mentioned that she would listen to JPII because the Holy Spirit was working through him. Is that to imply that the Holy Spirit was not working through Pius XII? Hmm.

 

[Serap]

I do! It’s a sad commentary that people felt they needed Dr Spock in the first place. It reflects a loss of common sense among the people.

Not having framed the thread, I answered the questions as they were posed.

But speaking to the gist of your spirited defense of the working woman generally, I would ask: “What are the problems that beset the modern Catholic family?” Then I would ask, “What can we do to alleviate them?”

Within that framework, I venture we would come up with hundreds of suggestions before we would arrive at the point where we suggest working women stay home.

Hopefully, based on my previous posts, you would see that next to suggesting women stay home, I would urge men to do the same. The balance between the amount of work we perform for our own interests and the interests of others is wrong, and we cannot fix it on one side of the gender divide only.

This is evident, since that the origin of the present crisis lies prior to women entering the wage market en masse.

You are a good intelligent person! I like your beliefs and ideals. The world WOULD be a better place with them.

 

[trinichiqn]

In general what I see in society are a bunch of people trying to live beyond their means, and thus they have to work two jobs to pay for it. Too many people are trying for the “American Dream” and end up with massive debt. Again, it’s so firmly entrenched in society now that it’s very difficult to get out of it. We are pressured into attending college because we think that we can’t get a job without it or that we’re not “educated” and right away there’s a huge debt and one person working is going to have a hard time paying off two college debts. I’m not saying I don’t understand why [some] people go to work when we’re in this rut, or that it isn’t absolutely necessary at times. What I don’t understand is why people leave their children alone to go to work when they don’t have to. And affording that extra-large house or second brand new car is NOT a have-to situation that forces the second parent to go to work.

I will also state again that two parents working limits job opportunities for those families that don’t even have one parent working. Really, there shouldn’t be a need to find statistics for this as it’s purely common sense. If there are a hundred jobs and eighty couples, it stands to reason that not all of them can be working. If out of those eighty families, forty have both parents working, that’s eighty jobs taken and twenty left for the remaining forty couples. Granted, women working does add a few jobs to society, such as more openings for babysitters and a need for more restaurant workers, however, those jobs are not jobs that are productive to a society - they are just more service jobs.

And one example from real life. My mother always stayed home with me and my siblings when we were growing up. I was always really grateful for that after watching everyone else being shipped to babysitters. My father, however, generally worked so late every week that I really didn’t see him except on weekends for the longest time. When I got older, I understood that it was something he had to do because he was working to support the family, but when I was a young child who did not fully understand the situation, I resenting hardly seeing him. I can’t imagine what little children feel like when they are left alone by both parents on a constant basis to be tended by strangers. Now, once a week I’m at a place that has a daycare center and I see two older women trying to take care of about thirty two-year olds. It is quite obvious to me that they cannot give the children the individual attention that they require at that age, nor are they qualified to do so considering they are not the parents. Honestly, I feel really sorry for those children. So IF the mother working is not absolutely necessary is it really worth the risk of resentment in the child, improper development, and precious family time (which you won’t get back) for a few more luxuries? Ask yourself that.

All this reminds me of the joke about the woman who hired a babysitter to come watch her child while she went to work at the daycare center…

That is somewhat a fallacy because if 40 or 50 of those jobs are for qualified doctors, lawyers, judges, accountants, actuaries, nurses, and the like and 40 remaining couples are not qualified for those jobs then no one took a job away from them. Therefore 2 working parents do not limit the job opportunities for families with no working parents unless they are all qualified for exactly the same job and all live and work in the same area which is highly unlikely.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

saying something has been a bad development (meaning generally so) does not mean it has been 100% bad with no advantages. I don’t think anyone would try to say that. There are very, very few things which are 100% bad in life, and you simply have to work with whether or not it is a majority good or majority bad, and plan accordingly. Once again, if a statement is made about “the family”, the question has to be answered generally.

It’s not even always wise to treat every situation individually because its: a. impossible to do on a large scale and b. assumes that every single family is so uniquely different that they can never be compared to or take advice from how another family or culture functions. That is not to discount that there might be circumstances where what is generally true is not true for a specific family, but the danger in immediately discounting general advice is the attitude “oh, that doesn’t apply to me” and ignoring that the general principles which promote a family best really don’t change.

You’ve just described moral relativism, a force within society that most people don’t even recognize.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

That is somewhat a fallacy because if 40 or 50 of those jobs are for qualified doctors, lawyers, judges, accountants, actuaries, nurses, and the like and 40 remaining couples are not qualified for those jobs then no one took a job away from them. Therefore 2 working parents do not limit the job opportunities for families with no working parents unless they are all qualified for exactly the same job and all live and work in the same area which is highly unlikely.

You’re adding a big IF to the statement. I can add an IF to it as well. What if those jobs they are taking are not ones that require high qualifications? It can work both ways. In the instance of those jobs which you mentioned, however, I know personally some doctors, accountants, lawyers, and judges. Each earns enough to support his family without the need for the wife working. So, no two jobs necessary.

 

[Katie966]

Actually, I tend to hear the argument a lot that “that old teaching can be ignored because we’re in a different age”. These tend to be the same people who believe that the Church should “get with the times”. What Pius XII wrote regarding working women is just as applicable today as it was back then. One can’t just pitch everything prior to Vatican II, though I understand there are a good deal of people who want to. Sorry, but morals (and human nature) don’t change.

I also find it funny that someone mentioned that she would listen to JPII because the Holy Spirit was working through him. Is that to imply that the Holy Spirit was not working through Pius XII? Hmm.

I never said that the Church should “get with the times”, or that wisdom that isn’t recent should be ignored. But obviously, as society changes, the Church must respond to that.

It’s not “just as applicable” now. The world is a different place. He was responding to the times in which he lived, which is absolutely necessary. Morals don’t change, but their application in specific situations needs to be addressed.

 

[Serap]

In general what I see in society are a bunch of people trying to live beyond their means, and thus they have to work two jobs to pay for it. Too many people are trying for the “American Dream” and end up with massive debt. Again, it’s so firmly entrenched in society now that it’s very difficult to get out of it.

Ahh but a small house is now unaffordable in today’s market…two incomes are needed to pay off a mortgage for just a small home

We are pressured into attending college because we think that we can’t get a job without it or that we’re not “educated” and right away there’s a huge debt and one person working is going to have a hard time paying off two college debts.

That’s because you CAN’T get a good job without college. It’s just the way it is now. Highschool used to be enough…now college is barely enough and the debt

I’m not saying I don’t understand why [some] people go to work when we’re in this rut, or that it isn’t absolutely necessary at times. What I don’t understand is why people leave their children alone to go to work when they don’t have to. And affording that extra-large house or second brand new car is NOT a have-to situation that forces the second parent to go to work.

**Most working families I know have a small house, a used car (maybe two) and don’t have any luxuries that you are talking of and I live in a middle class neighborhood. Who wants to raise kids in a bad neighbourhood with bad schools??? ** No way…most people I know would rather have a bigger debt and buy a smaller house in a nice neighborhood.

I will also state again that two parents working limits job opportunities for those families that don’t even have one parent working. Really, there shouldn’t be a need to find statistics for this as it’s purely common sense. If there are a hundred jobs and eighty couples, it stands to reason that not all of them can be working. If out of those eighty families, forty have both parents working, that’s eighty jobs taken and twenty left for the remaining forty couples. Granted, women working does add a few jobs to society, such as more openings for babysitters and a need for more restaurant workers, however, those jobs are not jobs that are productive to a society - they are just more service jobs.

You’re right here… one income used to be enough, but it simply ain’t anymore

And one example from real life. My mother always stayed home with me and my siblings when we were growing up. I was always really grateful for that after watching everyone else being shipped to babysitters. My father, however, generally worked so late every week that I really didn’t see him except on weekends for the longest time. When I got older, I understood that it was something he had to do because he was working to support the family, but when I was a young child who did not fully understand the situation, I resenting hardly seeing him.

Actually child psychologists that I frequented with my DD in the government run Early Years Centers in my city told me otherwise. They told me that girls in particular have a low self-esteem when daddy’s not around especially in the age of 0-2.

I can’t imagine what little children feel like when they are left alone by both parents on a constant basis to be tended by strangers. Now, once a week I’m at a place that has a daycare center and I see two older women trying to take care of about thirty two-year olds.

In my city, this would be illegal. There must be one daycare worker per 5 two year olds.

It is quite obvious to me that they cannot give the children the individual attention that they require at that age, nor are they qualified to do so considering they are not the parents. Honestly, I feel really sorry for those children. So IF the mother working is not absolutely necessary is it really worth the risk of resentment in the child, improper development, and precious family time (which you won’t get back) for a few more luxuries? Ask yourself that.

No woman I know is working for “luxuries” as you put it. Most women I know are working dang hard and every penny goes to the house, bills and kids. You got it all mixed up for sure. This ain’t 1950 anymore. Things are EXPENSIVE in my city!!! You can’t even buy a decent small house in my city for under $600,000

All this reminds me of the joke about the woman who hired a babysitter to come watch her child while she went to work at the daycare center…

 

[Serap]

Actually, I tend to hear the argument a lot that “that old teaching can be ignored because we’re in a different age”. These tend to be the same people who believe that the Church should “get with the times”. What Pius XII wrote regarding working women is just as applicable today as it was back then. One can’t just pitch everything prior to Vatican II, though I understand there are a good deal of people who want to. Sorry, but morals (and human nature) don’t change.

I also find it funny that someone mentioned that she would listen to JPII because the Holy Spirit was working through him. Is that to imply that the Holy Spirit was not working through Pius XII? Hmm.

It was me who mentioned the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit created Vatican II and changed many of the old way of doing things…simple fact. I cannot change that.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I never said that the Church should “get with the times”, or that wisdom that isn’t recent should be ignored. **But obviously, as society changes, the Church must respond to that.
**
It’s not “just as applicable” now. The world is a different place. He was responding to the times in which he lived, which is absolutely necessary. Morals don’t change, but their application in specific situations needs to be addressed.

No, the Church stays the same, it is society that moves farther and farther away from Christ’s teaching through the Magisterium.

If the Church responded to society’s changes, we’d have women priests, gay priests, contraception would be just fine and no conflict with abortion either.

 

[trinichiqn]

You’re adding a big IF to the statement. I can add an IF to it as well. What if those jobs they are taking are not ones that require high qualifications? It can work both ways. In the instance of those jobs which you mentioned, however, I know personally some doctors, accountants, lawyers, and judges. Each earns enough to support his family without the need for the wife working. So, no two jobs necessary.

I am an accountant and I can tell you that starting out we don’t make all that much money. We make more than minimum wage for sure but it takes time to move up. Also for those jobs that don’t require high qualifications you also have to take in to consideration; does the unemployed want it or did he/she make the right impression when interviewing. A job does not belong to anyone until they are hired and a boss will (or should) always hire the best person for the job.

 

[Katie966]

No, the Church stays the same, it is society that moves farther and farther away from Christ’s teaching through the Magisterium.

If the Church responded to society’s changes, we’d have women priests, gay priests, contraception would be just fine and no conflict with abortion either.

I didn’t say the Church should change. I said the Church should respond to change in society, meaning addressing issues that arise as a result of society’s change.

For instance, birth control. The Church needs to respond and address this issue, because it is prevalent. Not change.

Sorry if that wasn’t clear.