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

[OurBeloved]

---

The mother who stays home – may have more “quantity” time — but it is not a given that this is “quality” time. A mother who works – outside the home – while having less “quantity” time – can most certainly – be devoted to having quality time with her family.

Yes, I understand perfectly what you are saying.

But my point was that once you account for all these variable factors, the remaining result is the difference in time.

So two mothers, both with equally loving attitude toward their children, where one works and the other doesn’t. In such a scenario, the mother who works has less time while the mother who is at home has more quality time.

Both are devoted in this case as in both want to spent quality time, but the mother who stays at home is more successful at carrying out that devotion.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Very good question. Now if we look at those closely, and how each of these professions fit, you will realize that they didn’t require separation from Children.

Take teaching for an example. In this case, the mother will be teaching when her children are out in school as well. When the children come back, so do the mothers. Also, some of these schools in some cultures were run at home. So the children were still nearby.

The case with cooks is very similar to the above as well. Once the mother is able enough to cook after child birth and the child is grown enough, the mother will engage in such activities and the child will be very close to her while she is cooking.

Midwives is also not a regular absence.

If you comb history of humanity, I will be very surprised if you can find a “work” that women participated in that required regular, long absences from her children. In most cultures where even some form of even irregular absence was possible, the parents of the mother would be there to take care of the child temporarily.

All of these arrangements are absent in today’s society and the concept of “work” is much different from then. Even the profession cook or midwife is vastly different from what it was back then. So we must be careful not to read the words like “work” in the history of humanity to mean what we mean today by “work”. What we mean today by “work” for mothers is very new and did not exist in the history of humanity before.

Funny, when you look at them closely you didn’t look at domestic service.

Cooks who worked for big houses would not have their children with them.

Midwives may be away for several hours, births can take long periods of time.

Teachers may have children too young to be at school already.

 

[LemonAndLime]

---

The mother who stays home – may have more “quantity” time — but it is not a given that this is “quality” time. A mother who works – outside the home – while having less “quantity” time – can most certainly – be devoted to having quality time with her family.

There was a study done which found that women who worked part-time had a better relationship with their children than those who worked full-time or not at all, as they made more of an effort to have “quality” time with those children.

I can post a link on request.

 

[OurBeloved]

Funny, when you look at them closely you didn’t look at domestic service.

Sorry, I thought you would put the pieces together on this one as well.

Usually in domestic service, the mother would take the child with her to the place she worked. Sometimes when the children are old enough, they would even play with the children in that home.

Cooks who worked for big houses would not have their children with them.

Actually they did and usually the family lived in the house it-self or nearby, usually within the same grounds.

Midwives may be away for several hours, births can take long periods of time.

Yes, but it is once in awhile that this happens in small populations like in the past. In such cases, the mother of the parent will take care of the child till she comes back.

Teachers may have children too young to be at school already.

Actually, in such cases, if the school isn’t run at home, the teachers will not be teaching till the child is old enough.

I am afraid you are really trying to prove something phenomenal here that humanity from its ancient history had women working on a regular schedule outside the home separated from their children. Even the foraging cultures did not have such sort of behavior.

I invite you to look in to these things more as it can be very informative to see how our human history is like. Our human history is not limited to that of the US or the Western Civilization.

 

[OurBeloved]

There was a study done which found that women who worked part-time had a better relationship with their children than those who worked full-time or not at all, as they made more of an effort to have “quality” time with those children.

I can post a link on request.

If it is a study performed in our society it-self, I would not be surprised. As I said before, we live in a very distorted culture where ambition of a woman comes first and her worth is measured in terms of what they do at an organization rather than in family.

In such a society, most women can have lot of pressure and might have less satisfaction even being at home. So really not surprising.

But if you look at most studies performed in societies other than North America and Europe, I am sure you will find different results. Because the fact remains that once we account for quality of the parents, the time spent by working mothers is less than time spent by a stay at home mom.

 

[LemonAndLime]

If it is a study performed in our society it-self, I would not be surprised. As I said before, we live in a very distorted culture where ambition of a woman comes first and her worth is measured in terms of what they do at an organization rather than in family.

So the article proves that it doesn’t impact negatively on children.

But if you look at most studies performed in societies other than North America and Europe, I am sure you will find different results. Because the fact remains that once we account for quality of the parents, the time spent by working mothers is less than time spent by a stay at home mom.

Not sure what you’re implying here. Societys other than the Western world are often deeper in poverty and you’re not gonna find many women who don’t work.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

The mother who stays home – may have more “quantity” time — but it is not a given that this is “quality” time. A mother who works – outside the home – while having less “quantity” time – can most certainly – be devoted to having quality time with her family.

Yes, I understand perfectly what you are saying.

But my point was that once you account for all these variable factors, the remaining result is the difference in time.

So two mothers, both with equally loving attitude toward their children, where one works and the other doesn’t. In such a scenario, the mother who works has less time while the mother who is at home has more quality time.

Both are devoted in this case as in both want to spent quality time, but the mother who stays at home is more successful at carrying out that devotion.

---

It would be more truthful to say – the working mother devoted to spending quality time with the family – is just as successful as the stay at home mom.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Sorry, I thought you would put the pieces together on this one as well.

Usually in domestic service, the mother would take the child with her to the place she worked. Sometimes when the children are old enough, they would even play with the children in that home.

Prove it.

Although what you say is almost laughable. Can you imagine a member of the Royal family allowing her servants to bring their children to work with them, and then allow their children to play together? No, it wouldn’t happen.

Actually they did and usually the family lived in the house it-self or nearby, usually within the same grounds.

Prove it.

Again, how can you look after your children while working as a cook? No, it didn’t happen.

Yes, but it is once in awhile that this happens in small populations like in the past. In such cases, the mother of the parent will take care of the child till she comes back.

This is one thing I can agree on. Women could work because elderly relatives could watch younger children. See, now you’re beginning to figure out how it worked.

Actually, in such cases, if the school isn’t run at home, the teachers will not be teaching till the child is old enough.

So would a teacher stop being a teacher if they had another child? Where are you getting this information from?

I am afraid you are really trying to prove something phenomenal here that humanity from its ancient history had women working on a regular schedule outside the home separated from their children. Even the foraging cultures did not have such sort of behavior.

I invite you to look in to these things more as it can be very informative to see how our human history is like. Our human history is not limited to that of the US or the Western Civilization.

I am the only one who has actually proven what I am saying, so I do not think this is an equal conversation. You are all talk and no hard evidence, so how am I meant to take you seriously?

 

[OurBeloved]

---

It would be more truthful to say – the working mother devoted to spending quality time with the family – is just as successful as the stay at home mom.

But that would be a lie. Let me perhaps try to break it down and perhaps it might be more clear.

Two loving moms, A and B.

A works 8 hours a day, she comes back and cooks the meals which takes about 2 hours daily. She sleeps 8 hours. Needs about a hour to commute. Overall, this leaves A with about 5 hours for her children.

B requires 2 hours for her children. sleeps 8 hours. Has 14 hours for her children.

Given that A and B are both loving parents, B will have more quality time with her children.

So it appears that it is a fact, that mothers who stay at home, have more time to interact with the children compared to mothers who work.

What you keep saying is that the shorter time might be better quality. But quality is dependent on the parent. If the parents are both loving, the quality will always be equal. Then it comes down to quantity. That is where the working mother looses out.

 

[LemonAndLime]

But that would be a lie. Let me perhaps try to break it down and perhaps it might be more clear.

Two loving moms, A and B.

A works 8 hours a day, she comes back and cooks the meals which takes about 2 hours daily. She sleeps 8 hours. Needs about a hour to commute. Overall, this leaves A with about 5 hours for her children.

B requires 2 hours for her children. sleeps 8 hours. Has 14 hours for her children.

Given that A and B are both loving parents, B will have more quality time with her children.

So it appears that it is a fact, that mothers who stay at home, have more time to interact with the children compared to mothers who work.

What you keep saying is that the shorter time might be better quality. But quality is dependent on the parent. If the parents are both loving, the quality will always be equal. Then it comes down to quantity. That is where the working mother looses out.

My mum was a stay at home mum. She would get up to help me get ready for school, etc. But during the holidays she’d take it as her holiday and sleep until 2pm. She became overweight and lazy. I interupted the time she wanted to take for herself. She didn’t really bother to do activities with me as she was always at home anyway. She had more time to interact with me then perhaps someone who worked, but she took that time for granted.

Then she got a job, part-time. She wouldn’t get home until 5-6pm at night, but she missed us and we missed her. She’d sometimes pick a movie up home from work and we’d have a movie night, or she’d take us bowling. I had a better relationship with my mum then.

Also, here’s something to think on -

The study of 4,500 Australian pre-schoolers found those whose mothers worked some of the week were less likely to eat junk food, watch TV and over the course of the two-year research period were less likely to become overweight.

The authors suggested that mothers who worked part-time went to “considerable lengths” to ensure the time they did spend with their children was high quality.

“When mothers work part-time, there’s obviously something about the way the house is run, and the way parents are looking after their children that is protective,” said Jan Nicholson of Melbourne’s Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8547984.stm

 

[OurBeloved]

Prove it.

Although what you say is almost laughable. Can you imagine a member of the Royal family allowing her servants to bring their children to work with them, and then allow their children to play together? No, it wouldn’t happen.

Well first, as I said repeatedly many times before, the Western Civilization is a relatively young one. You who made a claim on humanity in general want to limit yourself to Western Civilization.

Secondly, yes, many who work in a palace, usually have quarters in the Palace it-self. They don’t get royal accommodation but they do have there own quarters. Those are referred to as Maid’s quarters/housing.

Prove it.

The claim is not a logical proposition but a historical fact. What is there to prove? That maids had quarters in the palace?

As I said once before, I invite you to pick up some history texts and especially anthropology texts.

Again, how can you look after your children while working as a cook? No, it didn’t happen.

When you are working as a cook, the children are still around you. I believe that the trouble you are having here is that everything I am saying is an experience you might not have shared yourself. All I can say is that the best cure for ignorance is to sometimes go outside your culture and visit different ones. You will learn a lot and see where our own culture went wrong.

Otherwise my posts here are simply along the lines of teaching you to swim while you are still on the ground.

This is one thing I can agree on. Women could work because elderly relatives could watch younger children. See, now you’re beginning to figure out how it worked.

Actually, if you go back to my very first post, I mentioned this right there. But it appears that you weren’t paying attention which does make me quiet sad.

More importantly, the relatives take care of the children as a temporary measure in case of an emergency or occasional situation. But it was never meant to replace the mother being around.

NOW, even if we do consider this exception, current society is no where close with its external family. The elders are usually put in retirement homes. So such a framework does not even exist in today’s culture.

So would a teacher stop being a teacher if they had another child? Where are you getting this information from?

They would temporarily refrain from teaching. I am getting this information from my time spent in other non-western cultures. This seems to be something you are unfortunately lacking.

I am the only one who has actually proven what I am saying, so I do not think this is an equal conversation. You are all talk and no hard evidence, so how am I meant to take you seriously?

What exactly have you proven? You have given evidence for existence of “work” after 1800’s. Then you have given evidence for ‘domestic servants’ in medieval times without even realizing that these women and their families usually resided in the palace quarters meant for maids and servants.

So far, your evidence has not proven your claim that “women staying at home is a relatively modern invention”.

You also seem to suffer from a severe misunderstanding that “stay at home mother” means “going to milk the cow” is also out of the question. The point of the stay at home mother is that she is around with her children all the time. This inability in going to work is a modern invention that started mostly in the West.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well first, as I said repeatedly many times before, the Western Civilization is a relatively young one. You who made a claim on humanity in general want to limit yourself to Western Civilization.

My Western Civilization isn’t relatively young at all. People have been living here for thousands of years.

Secondly, yes, many who work in a palace, usually have quarters in the Palace it-self. They don’t get royal accommodation but they do have there own quarters. Those are referred to as Maid’s quarters/housing.

So are you still claiming that their children were following them around as they worked?

The claim is not a logical proposition but a historical fact. What is there to prove? That maids had quarters in the palace?

That’s not what you originally said.

As I said once before, I invite you to pick up some history texts and especially anthropology texts.

Let’s stop here. I have provided history texts and websites to prove what I am saying. You have not. Your argument holds water like a sieve until you prove what you’re saying. I have provided links to articles, historical texts, and you have not - yet you are telling me I need to provide them? What makes you excempt to your own rule?



I call troll on this one.

 

[OurBeloved]

My mum was a stay at home mum. She would get up to help me get ready for school, etc. But during the holidays she’d take it as her holiday and sleep until 2pm. She became overweight and lazy. I interupted the time she wanted to take for herself. She didn’t really bother to do activities with me as she was always at home anyway. She had more time to interact with me then perhaps someone who worked, but she took that time for granted.

Then she got a job, part-time. She wouldn’t get home until 5-6pm at night, but she missed us and we missed her. She’d sometimes pick a movie up home from work and we’d have a movie night, or she’d take us bowling. I had a better relationship with my mum then.

First, as I said before, you are part of our culture. Your mom is part of our culture. Our culture has gone to the point where it is not even clear on what a stay at home mom needs to do let alone a mom in general. Your mom was unfortunately not utilizing her time properly to take the time to be with you. That is unfortunate.

But it would be very anecdotal for you to use that to then try and undermine every one else. My mother was a stay at home mom and she was there for me 100% of the time. She also handed down many of the family and religious values to me that I have today. She could tell even before I ask or say what I am thinking when it comes to most things. She stopped me numerous times right at the start when I started to go astray. In any case, as you can see, we have very different experiences.

What is clear is that given the mother is very loving and equally enthusiastic about caring for her children, she will have more time do so in a dedicated to do just that. Culture is important here in that it teaches and gives guidance to the mother as to her role. With our culture, there is nothing clear as to what a mother must do other than give birth and feed the kids.

Also, here’s something to think on -
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8547984.stm

I commented on this before on a post and how the validity of such studies performed in our culture or culture similar to ours is problematic. Did you miss that one?

 

[OurBeloved]

My Western Civilization isn’t relatively young at all. People have been living here for thousands of years.

That shows the extent of your ignorance I am afraid. There are civilizations that are far older than that.

So are you still claiming that their children were following them around as they worked?

Yes. Or even participating in the same chores or with their fathers.

That’s not what you originally said.

I said that maids/servants live in the same house or close by, didn’t I?

Let’s stop here. I have provided history texts and websites to prove what I am saying. You have not. Your argument holds water like a sieve until you prove what you’re saying. I have provided links to articles, historical texts, and you have not - yet you are telling me I need to provide them? What makes you excempt to your own rule?



I call troll on this one.

Well, to be honest, the only thing you provided was two Wikipedia links (mind you that anyone can edit) and one website on Western Civilizations. Some of the comments you made above also leave me to believe that you have no adequate knowledge on the history of this issue other than something you might have picked up from someone else or popular website like Wikipedia.

So yes, I honestly do believe that we should not discuss this matter further till you and I are at the same level of knowledge regarding these matters. As I invited you before, please take the time to read some history and anthropology books on this topic and perhaps consider visiting a non-Western culture to understand what it is like.

Nevertheless, thank you for a somewhat interesting discussion.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I commented on this before on a post and how the validity of such studies performed in our culture or culture similar to ours is problematic. Did you miss that one?

It is a study on our culture. We are talking about working mothers in our culture and the potential problems with that. Where is the problem?

 

[LemonAndLime]

So yes, I honestly do believe that we should not discuss this matter further till you and I are at the same level of knowledge regarding these matters. As I invited you before, please take the time to read some history and anthropology books on this topic and perhaps consider visiting a non-Western culture to understand what it is like.

Thanks for a somewhat interesting discussion.

Explain to me how a non-Western culture’s traditions concerning stay-at-home-mums is somehow more valid than our own?

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

It would be more truthful to say – the working mother devoted to spending quality time with the family – is just as successful as the stay at home mom.

But that would be a lie. Let me perhaps try to break it down and perhaps it might be more clear.

Two loving moms, A and B.

A works 8 hours a day, she comes back and cooks the meals which takes about 2 hours daily. She sleeps 8 hours. Needs about a hour to commute. Overall, this leaves A with about 5 hours for her children.

B requires 2 hours for her children. sleeps 8 hours. Has 14 hours for her children.

Given that A and B are both loving parents, B will have more quality time with her children.

So it appears that it is a fact, that mothers who stay at home, have more time to interact with the children compared to mothers who work.

What you keep saying is that the shorter time might be better quality. But quality is dependent on the parent. If the parents are both loving, the quality will always be equal. Then it comes down to quantity. That is where the working mother looses out.

---

No – it would not be a lie. It just not fit your “agenda” – that a working mother – who devotes to having quality time with her family – can be just as successful – as a stay at home mom.

 

[OurBeloved]

It is a study on our culture. We are talking about working mothers in our culture and the potential problems with that. Where is the problem?

I thought you said you didn’t want to discuss this anymore with me?

But to answer the question, the problem here is that our culture right now is already distorted. There are no defined roles for our mothers. We destroyed the culture we had starting from the 1800’s and now we have no traditions or values to turn to. We are a civilization at loss that just does whatever we can think of and hope it works. So even when we have a mother stay at home, she is at a loss as to what to do with the time.

A study performed in a non-Western culture would in this sense be more fruitful. These cultures still have well defined roles. In such a culture, it would be able to measure the performance of working mothers vs. stay at home mothers.

 

[LemonAndLime]

---

No – it would not be a lie. It just not fit your “agenda” – that a working mother – who devotes to having quality time with her family – can be just as successful – as a stay at home mom.

One wonders how society has coped up until now.

 

[OurBeloved]

Explain to me how a non-Western culture’s traditions concerning stay-at-home-mums is somehow more valid than our own?

Because we have lost our culture sometime back. If I ask your mother what is the role of the mother, she won’t be able to say anything more than feed the child and provide a home.

We did a good job at destroying our own culture.