Is it allowable for a Catholic husband to be the sole provider for his wife?

[Lujack]

You should have also noticed that the children were always close by. Oh but wait, you always seem to miss the details that are to your disadvantage. Gotcha!

You’re wrong when you say children were always close by. What about the Irish “Bridgets” who worked as maids in the late 19th/early 20th century? My great-grandmother was one of them; she cleaned movie theaters for a living and he certainly didn’t go from theater to theater with her. What about the cooks who worked in palaces and great houses? Sure, the kids may have lived in the area, but they weren’t with their parents; even if they were physically close they weren’t actually together. It wasn’t like the cook could take off to go play with her son or daughter

 

[minkymurph]

Well, I could hypothesize that the war period is where the first major degradation of values happened. With the mothers working, there was no one to hand down the values to the children.

So yes, the mothers did a good job in terms of feeding, taking to school etc. But they just couldn’t do the passing down of values.

The passing down of values doesn’t work in the sense of just giving the list of things not to do. You have to be behind child and see when he is about to go wrong or when he makes the first mistake. Then correct him then and there.

In this sense, I think we might have lost a lot during the war.

I don’t think you can say women can’t pass down values. Many can, and do. Aside from the war, there are many other examples that could be given. Until about 10 years ago, for generations many women in my part of the world worked in factories. Many factories here had what was known as a ‘housewife’ shift. They also had homeworkers, who made things like hairbrushes at home.

Those factories are gone now due to the fact goods can be manufactured at infinitely less cost in countries like Sri Lanka. There are more women, and men for that matter, at home now than ever because the employment market is dire, yet standards have fallen.

 

[minkymurph]

You’re wrong when you say children were always close by. What about the Irish “Bridgets” who worked as maids in the late 19th/early 20th century? My great-grandmother was one of them; she cleaned movie theaters for a living and he certainly didn’t go from theater to theater with her. What about the cooks who worked in palaces and great houses? Sure, the kids may have lived in the area, but they weren’t with their parents; even if they were physically close they weren’t actually together. It wasn’t like the cook could take off to go play with her son or daughter

That was my experience in the late twentieth century. I was a ‘latch key’ kid. However, most kids that grew up around me were as well. We didn’t have time to get into mischief. We had to get meat and veg on the way home from school and get the dinner on. Young people can’t to half the things for themselves people of my generation could.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

You’re wrong when you say children were always close by. What about the Irish “Bridgets” who worked as maids in the late 19th/early 20th century? My great-grandmother was one of them; she cleaned movie theaters for a living and he certainly didn’t go from theater to theater with her.

Bridgets,* “nearly all were single Roman Catholics from rurul Ireland.” The Irish Bridget, Maureen Lynch Brennen page xi*.

Some of my family were Irish domestic servants also but quit once they got married and had to raise their own family.

What about the cooks who worked in palaces and great houses? Sure, the kids may have lived in the area, but they weren’t with their parents; even if they were physically close they weren’t actually together. It wasn’t like the cook could take off to go play with her son or daughter

This is where this argument isn’t even making sense. I can’t believe people actually think that all these women in the past left their kids at a day care, went off to work and came home in the evening as we do today, fixed supper, did the laundry and it was just wonderful. Day cares didn’t even come to America until the late1800’s and that was few and far between. Most of those cooks and women who worked in palaces were women who were single. A lot of them trying to help the family pay bills or put food on the table. Families used to be a lot larger than today and when you were old enough you helped the family.

Families. Families that is who cared for children if a mother had to go somewhere, anywhere, even to a job if needed or yes the children went with them. They would sit in highchairs or play quietly. If left at home older siblings would need to help care for the babies or maybe the mother’s sister or a grandmother or a close friend. If someone was wealthy they might have a nanny. Maybe the father would be there but not because he was being a homemaker because he was working the family farm. Young girls worked a long side their mothers so they knew how to care for their home when they got married.

I have seen places where some Christian women still bring their children to work, at offices and nursing homes and other places.

In the past many times if the family was poor and maybe the husband died or left and despite having a job she was struggling to keep the kids fed and clothed or maybe she just wasn’t caring for her chldren properly, maybe leaving them alone then the government would come and take your children and put them in foster homes or orphanages. Women didn’t seek out careers to get out of the house or to make a name for themselves, least ways if they took their responsibility serious. They worked but they worked at home unless it was a money issue and then they worked out of necessity.

 

[TrueLight]

Bridgets,* “nearly all were single Roman Catholics from rurul Ireland.” The Irish Bridged.

I have seen places where some Christian women still bring their children to work, at offices and nursing homes and other places.
*

I still see this at beauty salons. Often a younger child stays in the salon and interacts with all the beauticians.

 

[Baelor]

You asked me to quantify, I asked you to calculate. If you are unable to calculate, you are not entitled for me to do it for you

You made the claim, it is your responsibility to prove it, which you continue tor refuse to do. I cannot calculate anything without having quantities to calculate, which you refuse to provide.

You should have also noticed that the children were always close by. Oh but wait, you always seem to miss the details that are to your disadvantage. Gotcha!

Not always.

Well, your statements seem to lack the experience of someone who has accomplished such feats as the one listed above. Such a shame. A man is measured by the what he speaks to a certain extent. You yourself are to blame for making me consider you in the state I did. Mind you, I still have to go by my inference on what you have written rather than what you claim.

Your opinions are your own responsibility. Your own myopia and refusal to substantiate your claims speaks to your own provincialism. I guess that is the result of being cooped up in a house all day.

And the jobs of my parents are not “feats,” and I accomplished nothing by virtue of being their child. I am fortunate to count myself as a global citizen, something that few can claim. It really opens your eyes; I would suggest trying it at some point in the future.

 

[minkymurph]

This is where this argument isn’t even making sense. I can’t believe people actually think that all these women in the past left their kids at a day care, went off to work and came home in the evening as we do today, fixed supper, did the laundry and it was just wonderful.

Families. Families that is who cared for children if a mother had to go somewhere, anywhere, even to a job if needed or yes the children went with them. They would sit in highchairs or play quietly. If left at home older siblings would need to help care for the babies or maybe the mother’s sister or a grandmother or a close friend. If someone was wealthy they might have a nanny. Maybe the father would be there but not because he was being a homemaker because he was working the family farm. Young girls worked a long side their mothers so they knew how to care for their home when they got married.

In the past many times if the family was poor and maybe the husband died or left and despite having a job she was struggling to keep the kids fed and clothed or maybe she just wasn’t caring for her chldren properly, maybe leaving them alone then the government would come and take your children and put them in foster homes or orphanages. Women didn’t seek out careers to get out of the house or to make a name for themselves, least ways if they took their responsibility serious. They worked but they worked at home unless it was a money issue and then they worked out of necessity.

I can’t believe people think in the past women stayed at home with children. Affluent families, who were exceptional perhaps. In the past, children worked alongside parents in factories from as young as 6. They worked long hours and many were killed. Children on farms worked alongside both parents in fields.

This is not just a thing of past. In contemporary times women in Honduras have to tie young children’s legs, I mean toddlers, to a stake in the ground while they go to work in factory. A married couple in Thailand haven’t seen their children for almost two years as they had to leave their village to find work in the cities, and send money home to their parents who were raising their children. Many Filipino women pay someone to look after their family while they work in Hong Kong and Japan.

The Utopia of women in the house with the children is for affluent westerners, no one else.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

I can’t believe people think in the past women stayed at home with children. Affluent families, who were exceptional perhaps. In the past, children worked alongside parents in factories from as young as 6. They worked long hours and many were killed. Children on farms worked alongside both parents in fields. .

That is pretty much what I said. Children either worked on the farm with their parents, in the kitchen with the mother or went to work with their parents, many times to learn the trade. But working on the farm was part of family life. It was their home. They weren’t leaving their home to go work for someone else unless it was a financial necessity but that was not the ideal situation.

This is not just a thing of past. In contemporary times women in Honduras have to tie young children’s legs, I mean toddlers, to a stake in the ground while they go to work in factory. A married couple in Thailand haven’t seen their children for almost two years as they had to leave their village to find work in the cities, and send money home to their parents who were raising their children. Many Filipino women pay someone to look after their family while they work in Hong Kong and Japan.

As I said, there are those out of necessity go to work but many cultures other than western cultures are very close knit and work hard to keep the family together.

" *Family ties are strong in Honduras. Parents, Grandparents, children, aunts/uncles, and cousins commonly occupy the same household. Even though the typical Honduran lives in what we consider poverty, a small two-room adobe home with dirt floors. Few people enjoy modern conveniences." *
okstate.edu/ag/honduras/Culture/culture.html

"Honduras is quite conservative compared with most Western countries. For one thing, Latin parents tend to be very protective. Teenagers are expected to respect their parents and elders and to live by the family’s advice and rules. In many families the father goes out to work while the mother stays at home and runs the household. Although it is common for families to have a maid, a daughter is normally expected to help her mother with running the home while a son runs errands and does odd jobs. When teenagers date, parents tend to be stricter with their daughters."
afsusa.org/host-family/countries/honduras/

What I find really sad about this thread is that women are working very hard to show reason to be away from their children. If there is financial necessity and yes it happens, I have seen it, then I can certainly understand a womans need to work but a lot of the reasons I have heard have not been financial. More like fullfilling my dreams, having my own ambitions, don’t want my life to be focused on my children, that’s how other women do it, that’s how women have always done it, why don’t the men do it, etc. It shows how our culture is continually turning our backs on our children and families and we are reaping the results.

 

[floresco]

This is not and never has been a Catholic teaching. Show me a Church document from any time, ever, that insists that a mother is closer to the child than the father.

The Familiaris Consortio passage I quoted earlier was about the special role of the mother at home with children and that it should be valued and made possible. That is not quite the same as saying she is closer, but it is certainly treating her role as different from the father’s.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Some women make better mothers when they work outside, meeting and working with other adults. They come home better able to care and be with their children.

A drained mom who is bored at home or just not geared for it is not a great mom. Just ask my mom. She was home a lot with us…we would have been better off if she was working and felt a little more fulfilled.

There are some women that are natural mothers…and do stay home and do fantastic jobs with their kids. That is just not every women. Just as women should not be pressured to work outside the home…they should not be pressured to stay home either.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

This is a simple matter here and how you are stumbling over it is anybody’s guess. When a person has more time to spend on something, and actually is committed to doing it, they do a good job at it.

In the case of motherhood, when a mother has more time to engage in caring for her children, and are committed to care for her children, they do a good job at it. The ones who have lesser time, even with the same amount of commitment, achieve less.

Your repeated statements trying to play with semantics are really not worth anyone’s time to address. It really feels like what people usually label as “trolling”. The above should be pretty clear to you. If not, please ask someone else you know to explain it to you.

As far as I am concerned, the fact has being made clear to you repeatedly, and it has been explained to you why what you say is irrelevant as clearly as possible. The discussion between you and me is therefore over!

Wrong! You are assuming all things equal. Yes…all things equal…the same mothering type that wants to stay home is going to be more committed. But not all women are equal and have that kind of commitment. My mom had all the time in the world…and did a lousy job at it. She really was not the stay at home, mothering type. You assume that we are all built the same way…unfortuntely we are not.

You also seem to negate the fact that there are single mom’s who have no choice but to work and do a splendid job at it.

 

[Baelor]

Sorry, perhaps someone answered this earlier, but I did not see it: is there any reason for believing that SAHMs are more desirable than SAHDs?

 

[floresco]

Sorry, perhaps someone answered this earlier, but I did not see it: is there any reason for believing that SAHMs are more desirable than SAHDs?

There is Church teaching which speaks of the great value of mothers being home with their children and nothing comparable concerning fathers. I posted a quote earlier in the thread.