Is it wrong for a Catholic woman to work and have a family?

[Serap]

Forgive me for once again derailing the thread

There are things in US economy that greatly puzzle me, and this is one of them: how can one paycheck (the mother’s) cover only a car, gas, and daycare (expenses connected with actually having the job), while the other paycheck in the family (the father’s) covers a car, gas, and all the other expenses the family has (bills, food, clothes, and anything else people spend money on)?

This is so often cited as the reason why it makes more sense for US mothers to stay at home.

Is daycare that expensive? Or are women’s salaries in the US so low? Would the father’s salary also only cover daycare and the car and gas he uses to get to work?

Thank you in advance for clarifying this to me.

I’m paying my live-in nanny $1,800 a month (taxes and salary). I will be paying my nanny $3,000 a month (taxes and salary) when she becomes live-out beginning June. Thankfully, my kids begin school full-time this September, so I will no longer have this huge expense.

Daycare for babies is $1,300 - $1,800 per month
Daycare for older babies is $1,100 - $1,700 per month
Daycare for toddlers is $900 - $1,500 per month

So if you have 2 kids, you could be paying over $2,000 per month easily.

 

[PetiteFoi]

This is true, and I am one of those people. To me, providing doesn’t mean providing the bare minimum to survive… ie. living in a trailer in an unsafe part of town, having one janky car which probably isn’t very reliable, having to stress every week about whether there will be enough food on the table, not being able to send your kids to good schools, not being able to go visit family on Christmas (or ever), and having to send my kids off into the world with handymedown/good will clothes.

I’m sure some here will call me selfish and materialistic, and that’s completely fine, but I fully believe that adequately providing for a family means being able to give them a better, safer, and more secure quality of life than described above.

I am very blessed that my husband will be making enough money to provide my future children and I with a decent home, reliable cars, and the means to visit family that will be living far away. I am very very blessed for that, because I really want to be a sahm and I am glad I will get the opportunity to. However, if my husband wasn’t making enough to afford that, then you better believe I’d be out there helping him adequately provide a good life for our children. And if anyone here wants to say that’s sinful and selfish and materialistic of me, then so be it!

I believe there is a difference between wanting several cars and scrimping enough by to make sure there’s food on the table.
If my husband could not make enough to assure us of food, rent in a safe home, and other necessary comforts- then of course I’d work.
I’m highly trained and make a decent wage, not to mention have very experienced resume.

People are so concerned about what they deem as “necessary” and is that really such a surprise considering the society we live in?
Ask any number of child-free couples, and the main reason they do not want children is so they have more “me” money.
It’s unfortunate but true.

All I’m saying is you don’t need the bling, the cars, the huge house, the trips etc.
If you can afford them, great! But I’m not going to pass on raising my children at home, because I’d rather get another car, or go to the bahamas.

It’s sad that so much importance is put on “bigger, better, newer, more expensive.”
What on earth is wrong with second hand clothing? Or a used kitchen table?

When I step back and look at what my goals are for myself, my marriage and my family - a new dining room set isn’t one of them.

Peace,
_PetiteFoi

Forgive me for once again derailing the thread

There are things in US economy that greatly puzzle me, and this is one of them: how can one paycheck (the mother’s) cover only a car, gas, and daycare (expenses connected with actually having the job), while the other paycheck in the family (the father’s) covers a car, gas, and all the other expenses the family has (bills, food, clothes, and anything else people spend money on)?

This is so often cited as the reason why it makes more sense for US mothers to stay at home.

Is daycare that expensive? Or are women’s salaries in the US so low? Would the father’s salary also only cover daycare and the car and gas he uses to get to work?

Thank you in advance for clarifying this to me.

I’m Canadian.

The difference is, that if I work out of the house - we’d need double of everything, which includes things like car payments, debt etc.
Or we’d have to move to a more expensive part of the city so I could do public transit.

However, in my case - technically I would make more money than my husband.
I’ve been working in my field longer - he’s a jouneyman welder, who’s now retraining in IT and on contract with the gvmnt. currently.

But money is not out goal.

I think that’s what people have so much trouble understanding.
We’re not here to make as much money as possible.
We make enough.
We’re comfortable, have creature comforts, plus a little extra. I don’t worry about making rent, or having food, paying our bills or diapering my child.
Our car is old, I buy second hand all the time, we rent a 2-bedroom apartment, and will hopefully buying in two years.
I don’t have a dishwasher and I use a clothesline to dry my clothes.
And life is good!!

My husband wants to be the provider, its in his nature to provide and lead.
If for some reason he could not work, I’d be out there working the second it happened!
But my place right now is with my children - to raise them up in the Church and God’s glory.
Not to make more money.

Peace,

• PetiteFoi

 

[Debora123]

I believe there is a difference between wanting several cars and scrimping enough by to make sure there’s food on the table.
If my husband could not make enough to assure us of food, rent in a safe home, and other necessary comforts- then of course I’d work.
I’m highly trained and make a decent wage, not to mention have very experienced resume.

People are so concerned about what they deem as “necessary” and is that really such a surprise considering the society we live in?
Ask any number of child-free couples, and the main reason they do not want children is so they have more “me” money.
It’s unfortunate but true.

All I’m saying is you don’t need the bling, the cars, the huge house, the trips etc.
If you can afford them, great! But I’m not going to pass on raising my children at home, because I’d rather get another car, or go to the bahamas.

Who said anything about “several cars?” Wanting one working, reliable car for each parent (2) hardly qualifies as several.

And who said anything about bling and a huge house??

First of all, I didn’t even mention the word bling, and the type of house I said I wanted was “decent” not huge. Decent meaning in a good, safe part of town, and adequately sized for a family of 4. And an actual house with a backyard for the kids to play, not a trailer, an apartment, or a falling down shack in the ghettos.

Who said anything about the Bahamas??

Considering we’ll be living very far away from any family members, I’d like to be able to afford giving my children a relationship with their grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins who will live far away. This has nothing to do with splurging in the Bahamas.

I don’t think it’s fair to insinuate that anyone who wants those things is being selfish and indulging in “me” money. But I knew there would be people here who would say it is, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Forgive me for once again derailing the thread

There are things in US economy that greatly puzzle me, and this is one of them: how can one paycheck (the mother’s) cover only a car, gas, and daycare (expenses connected with actually having the job), while the other paycheck in the family (the father’s) covers a car, gas, and all the other expenses the family has (bills, food, clothes, and anything else people spend money on)?

This is so often cited as the reason why it makes more sense for US mothers to stay at home.

Is daycare that expensive? Or are women’s salaries in the US so low? Would the father’s salary also only cover daycare and the car and gas he uses to get to work?

Thank you in advance for clarifying this to me.

Part of the reason is due to taxes.

A family of 5 for example would have a mom. dad and three kids. If the dad only works, he can deduct the three children as dependents and receive a tax break, and then also deduct the wife. So the husband’s salary would have taxes removed from his paycheck, and then adjusted to reflect 4 dependents.

The same family mom and dad both work. The dad would lose one dependent and pay a higher tax rate. The mom on the other hand would not be able to declare the children (they are already declared by dad), so her tax rate will be higher still. Then factoring in childcare, traveling expenses etc, the couple isn’t really earning 2 salaries, but 1 and a small fraction of the other.

(I’m describing this through second hand knowledge. I might not be accurate)

 

[PetiteFoi]

Who said anything about “several cars?” Wanting one working, reliable car for each parent (2) hardly qualifies as several.

And who said anything about bling and a huge house??

First of all, I didn’t even mention the word bling, and the type of house I said I wanted was “decent” not huge. Decent meaning in a good, safe part of town, and adequately sized for a family of 4. And an actual house with a backyard for the kids to play, not a trailer, an apartment, or a falling down shack in the ghettos.

Who said anything about the Bahamas??

Considering we’ll be living very far away from any family members, I’d like to be able to afford giving my children a relationship with their grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins who will live far away. This has nothing to do with splurging in the Bahamas.

I don’t think it’s fair to insinuate that anyone who wants those things is being selfish and indulging in “me” money. But I knew there would be people here who would say it is, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I didn’t mean to insinuate that you, personally required these things.
I’m making a general statement as to what’s regarded as sociological requirements.
Just like when you were talking about “living in a trailer in a bad part of town” (paraphrasing) I’m sure you didn’t mean to insinuate that I’d rather not work than make sure my children get enough to eat or a safe home in which to live.

This was not a personal attack - but I apologize if you took it as one.

Peace,

• PetiteFoi

Edited to add: I re-read the text you quoted from me, I see it now! I meant “you” general “you” not specific “you”.
Again, sorry about that!

 

[gmarie21]

I think that’s what people have so much trouble understanding.
We’re not here to make as much money as possible.
We make enough.
We’re comfortable, have creature comforts, plus a little extra. I don’t worry about making rent, or having food, paying our bills or diapering my child.
Our car is old, I buy second hand all the time, we rent a 2-bedroom apartment, and will hopefully buying in two years.
I don’t have a dishwasher and I use a clothesline to dry my clothes.
And life is good!!

My husband wants to be the provider, its in his nature to provide and lead.
If for some reason he could not work, I’d be out there working the second it happened!
But my place right now is with my children - to raise them up in the Church and God’s glory.
Not to make more money.

Peace,

• PetiteFoi

On a side note: I wish we could clothesline our clothes but our outdoor allergies are HORRIBLE and we live in open farm land area. We’d save a lot just on electricity if we could open our windows (we don’t keep it cold during the warmer months, just comfortable but on beautifully cool spring and autumn days would love the windows open). Dumb allergies

 

[PetiteFoi]

On a side note: I wish we could clothesline our clothes but our outdoor allergies are HORRIBLE and we live in open farm land area. We’d save a lot just on electricity if we could open our windows (we don’t keep it cold during the warmer months, just comfortable but on beautifully cool spring and autumn days would love the windows open). Dumb allergies

:hug3: That does stink!
I can’t imagine not being able to hang the clothes out because of allergies! My favourite scent in the world is clothes fresh off the line.
Plus, I’m a bit sentimental - my mum and I would always have the best talks on the back porch as I helped her hang/fold clothes off the line.

 

[Baelor]

Is daycare that expensive?

Yes. In some cases, it is not worth a parent working because her [or his] entire salary – entire salary – would be used for daycare expenses.

Or are women’s salaries in the US so low? Would the father’s salary also only cover daycare and the car and gas he uses to get to work?

Women make less than men in the same positions.

 

[gmarie21]

Is daycare that expensive? .

We have had a few families with three children under our care. With the multi-children discount they still paid $28,600 per year for daycare. That was when we were open four days per week. Now, if a family with three children wanted to send all three to daycare (we’re open five days now) it would cost them $36,400 per year to send all three full time. We are not unreasonably priced, actually, we charge a little less than the norm for licensed childcare in our area (now, if you’re talking about unlicensed childcare that is usually less). But it still comes out to about $5 per hour per child.

 

[Litcrit]

Wow. Thanks for the information.

In my country, daycare is subsidized on a sliding scale, depending on income, the number of children, and other factors. We never used daycare, as my husband is a SAHD, but it wouldn’t take more than a fifth of my salary to put both children there.

What do *single *parents do in the US/Canada (I was under the impression Canada was more family-friendly)? Where I live, daycare is (almost) free for single parents - a symbolic sum is paid, something like a dollar per month.

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

Dear Kamaduck,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Undoubtedly, dear sister, she does spend “some time” beyond the borders of her house, providing from all quarters maintenance for her household. However, we are told in that passage (Prov. 31: 27) that this virtuous woman carefully watches over the conduct of the family and domestics, which she simply could not have competently done had she been absent from her home from any great length of time. What is perfectly clear is that her home is the centre of all her operations because this is her responsibility as a woman. If, as Sacred Scripture tells us, a “Man goeth forth to his work and to his labour until the evening” (Psalm 104: 23), a woman finds her true work as a “keeper at home” (Titus 2: 5), for she is by nature best fitted for this work. It has been assigned to her by the Divine Providence and so she should embrace it wholeheartedly and accept it as a part of true womanhood. The pious woman of Proverbs does not live a life of self-indulgent inactivity at home but is occupied in personal and domestic industry, ready and willing to undertake any work that befits her sex and station. What we have here is a godly and industrious woman homemaker and therefore a true model for all married women to emulate, especially given the destructive ideology of radical aberrant feminism which speaks disparraginly of women homebuilders.

It is very easy, dear sister, to come to a passage like Proverbs 31 and then attempt to impose upon it our own modern views respecting the role of women and use certain isolated texts like pegs on which to hang our particular theories. By doing this Sacred Scripture can be twisted to support almost any bizzare and unorthodox opinion and this frequently happens, of course, with Protestant Fundamentalism. Look, our passage is quite clear that the virtuous woman’s centre of operations is the domestic hearth and only those with some particular theory to uphold would insist on maintaining otherwise. At any rate, I have yet to see any reputable exegete use it for polemical purposes to lend support to married women working outside of the home.

God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait

Pax

Excellent Post.

 

[gmarie21]

Wow. Thanks for the information.

In my country, daycare is subsidized on a sliding scale, depending on income, the number of children, and other factors. We never used daycare, as my husband is a SAHD, but it wouldn’t take more than a fifth of my salary to put both children there.

What do *single *parents do in the US/Canada (I was under the impression Canada was more family-friendly)? Where I live, daycare is (almost) free for single parents - a symbolic sum is paid, something like a dollar per month.

States do provide subsidies, just like with doctors, it is very difficult to find daycares that will take state money (at least in my state which is MONTHS behind paying childcare providers). In poorer areas it is easier to find providers who will take the subsidies, but in suburban areas, not as much. And those that o usually limit the amount of children they will take who are subsidized knowing that their reimbursement will be way behind (afterall, the providers have bills to pay too). Sometimes childcare is fully subsidized, sometimes only partially requiring the parent to pay the remainder.

 

[Debora123]

I didn’t mean to insinuate that you, personally required these things.
I’m making a general statement as to what’s regarded as sociological requirements.
Just like when you were talking about “living in a trailer in a bad part of town” (paraphrasing) I’m sure you didn’t mean to insinuate that I’d rather not work than make sure my children get enough to eat or a safe home in which to live.

This was not a personal attack - but I apologize if you took it as one.

Peace,

• PetiteFoi

Edited to add: I re-read the text you quoted from me, I see it now! I meant “you” general “you” not specific “you”.
Again, sorry about that!

It’s ok, thank you.

Sorry if I was quick on the defensive.

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

fatherlessbook.com/reviews/fatherless-reviews/catholic-novelist-calls-men-to-spiritual-fatherhood.html#more-277

 

[thewanderer]

fatherlessbook.com/reviews/fatherless-reviews/catholic-novelist-calls-men-to-spiritual-fatherhood.html#more-277

I’m sorry, but I really don’t see what this has to do with this thread. Nobody is questioning the fact that our society today has many issues or that the sexual revolution was bad for society, or even that many people in society do not truly value fatherhood (or even motherhood for that matter). The question here is whether or not it is a moral option for a woman to earn money while she has children and the answer to that question is an absolute unequivocal yes. There is nothing sinful in it. What can be sinful is if a woman (or man for that matter) decides to go out and work when doing so will be detrimental to their family. Each family needs to look at their own particular circustances and determine what is best for them as a family. If it is best that the woman work then that is exactly what should be happening. If it is best for the man to work, then that is what should be happening, and if it is best for both to work, then of course that is the route that should be taken. Nobody is saying that fathers are unnecessary, rather they are saying that it is not immoral for women with children to work, and oftentimes in todays world it is actually the best route for a family.

 

[Kensho]

There are two ways to help provide income for your family. One is to go out and earn a paycheck. The other is to devote your time to saving your family money.

As has just been pointed out, childcare is a great expense. I don’t know how working mothers of little children manage unless they either have very high-paying jobs or got a sweet deal with a relative or neighbor.

As a SAHM, I saved my husband a lot of time and money and greatly raised his quality of life with my work at home. Now, I live out in the country and can (and do) raise chickens and dairy goats and a vegetable garden, and I also like to work with my hands, so I make things that are useful and nice and would be very expensive if purchased – I know that not everyone can do that. But even a housewife who lives in an apartment in the city and is not crafty can be an asset to her family by how she uses her time and money.

I wish I could have a vacation; I haven’t had one in several years, although that’s mainly because I am caring for an invalid at home. However, I don’t understand what is wrong with hand-me-downs and thrift store purchases and am a little hurt at the suggestion that dressing your children in used clothes equals not giving them a decent life. Nearly everything we own that I didn’t make is secondhand, and my daughter is one of the best-dressed children I know. She also gets a lot that other kids don’t get because I have the time to provide it.

 

[Kensho]

I forgot to add that I wish people would consider how it sounds or who they are belittling when they make unflattering reference to living in a trailer. There are surely people on this forum who currently live in or have lived in a trailer; there are more of us who have had friends and family who lived in trailers. Heck, my grandparents’ first family home together with their first child was a camper, and they were one of the happiest and most functional families I ever knew. It’s okay to want certain things for yourself but be careful not to suggest that those who don’t have those things aren’t giving their children a “decent” life.

 

[Lochias]

I forgot to add that I wish people would consider how it sounds or who they are belittling when they make unflattering reference to living in a trailer. There are surely people on this forum who currently live in or have lived in a trailer; there are more of us who have had friends and family who lived in trailers. Heck, my grandparents’ first family home together with their first child was a camper, and they were one of the happiest and most functional families I ever knew. It’s okay to want certain things for yourself but be careful not to suggest that those who don’t have those things aren’t giving their children a “decent” life.

Good point, this. I grew up in a small, run-down house with not much at all to our names, but I would definitely consider myself to have had a “decent” childhood.

 

[Debora123]

I forgot to add that I wish people would consider how it sounds or who they are belittling when they make unflattering reference to living in a trailer. There are surely people on this forum who currently live in or have lived in a trailer; there are more of us who have had friends and family who lived in trailers. Heck, my grandparents’ first family home together with their first child was a camper, and they were one of the happiest and most functional families I ever knew. It’s okay to want certain things for yourself but be careful not to suggest that those who don’t have those things aren’t giving their children a “decent” life.

People get offended way too easily.

I personally would rather work than be a SAHM and live in a trailer. That’s just the truth. I don’t have anything against people who do, I just personally would want to provide a better house for my family. If that offends you, I am sorry.

 

[Lochias]

People get offended way too easily.

I personally would rather work than be a SAHM and live in a trailer. That’s just the truth. I don’t have anything against people who do, I just personally would want to provide a*** better house for my family.*** If that offends you, I am sorry.

That statement still sounds like you think the SAHMs who do live in trailers aren’t “doing enough” for their families.

Not really upset or the like, but that’s totally how it sounds, just so you know. I don’t think it would take much for most people to be offended at least a bit at that kind of statement.