Is the patriarchy a good thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to the thread topic: We also have the problem of youth peer groups (both male and female) based on popularity denigrating academic achievement if the leaders of the popular group aren’t good at school. If the most popular kids of your child’s gender in your child’s class are serious about school or even just admire those who are, you’re in luck. If the most popular kids are poor at academic work and take a dim view of those who are, that is a real problem for you as a parent. Your child is being presented with a choice: Be more well-liked and approved of or have better grades. That is not a fair choice for a student to have to make, but it happens.

The “Popular-archy” does more to hold our children back academically than many of us realize.
(It certainly holds many people of all ages back from religious devotion and piety, as well.)
 
Last edited:
Do you think we don’t know that women worked in factories in World War II, just because we witnessed prejudices against the idea when we were young?

If not, why are you advising we read a book about the way things were in the 1940s when we have been posting about how things have been for us in our own lifetimes?

The civil right movement and the women’s rights movement came about to a great degree because war experiences taught women and minorities that the old prejudices holding them back were made-up barriers. That doesn’t mean the barriers didn’t come back when there were enough white men back from the war to be able to discriminate in their favor again. If that discrimination hadn’t happened, those two movements wouldn’t have been necessary. As we all know, though, they were necessary.

We did get the GI bill, though, and many men who had been denied access to higher education because of the economic class of their parents finally started to get it. That was a watershed moment for both men and women in the classes that rarely had access to college before the War. That is what opening up opportunities can do for a nation.
 
Last edited:
They were necessary to those who wanted to destroy the family, to promote contraception and abortion, as well as No-Fault Divorce. None of those were necessary, especially no-fault divorce, which made it “too easy.” The loud radicals had a job and they did it well, wrecking homes and Western society in general. Things are not better now than they were in the 1950s.

Radical, destructive social engineering is destructive.
 
Last edited:
Thankyou for your deeper explanation of why boys are falling behind in education, includung “checking out” early when they feel it’s not for them. That was my son to a t. Thankyou also for your own defence of boys in the system.

That’s from a quick read. I’ll have to have another look tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
They were necessary to those who wanted to destroy the family, to promote contraception and abortion, as well as No-Fault Divorce. None of those were necessary, especially no-fault divorce, which made it “too easy.” The loud radicals had a job and they did it well, wrecking homes and Western society in general. Things are not better now than they were in the 1950s.
Did it ever occur to you that just as the unions and the excesses of unions wouldn’t have happened if employers had been fair to their employees in the first place, the excesses that came out of the civil rights movements might not have happened if women and minorities had been treated fairly in the first place?

As for contraception, abortion and easy divorce, that problem was rearing its head already in the 1930s, as Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii shows. None of those problems is a defense for keeping qualified people from pursuing educations or jobs that they were quite capable of doing, either by barring them outright or by more indirect yet very real forms of discrimination.

It is outrageous to defend discrimination on the grounds that doing so is actually a defense of virtue. That is not true. The civil rights and women’s rights movements were necessary because there was entrenched discrimination against women and minorities. It was unjust and there is no defense for it.

If you were not suggesting any such thing, please do accept my apologies. I mean to attack not you, but the prevalence of that idea and how often that conclusion is reached when people read posts such as you posted. I don’t want to be guilty of rash judgement against you.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your polite reply. It is false to link the civil rights movement with problems experienced by women. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. told his followers that if you can’t resist the bricks and bottles without responding with violence then don’t march with me. (See The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. by Clayborn Carson.) Those black people marching for civil rights could not help being black. The Catholic Church supported them. I was listening to Al Kresta on Catholic Radio talking about how that fact has been buried over the years.

By the way, the GI Bill was not passed by women but by men at the urging of homer builders who began building cookie-cutter neighborhoods after World War II. Then social engineers stepped in in the 1960s to stop the flow of more babies.
 
Last edited:
By the way, the GI Bill was not passed by women but by men at the urging of homer builders who began building cookie-cutter neighborhoods after World War II.
The home builders obviously loved the VA home loan program…but the larger reason for the GI Bill was to guard against a huge spike in unemployment when all those members of the armed forces returned home. FDR was terrified of unemployment - it was a huge problem in the Great Depression that the New deal was never really able to solve - so the idea was to send many of those returning soldiers and sailors off to college so they wouldn’t all be entering the job market at the same time. And it worked, with spectacular results.
 
Last edited:
It was an example of good social planning. Something that actually benefitted people. The VA home loan program was a part of that.
 
It’s much the same as the visceral reaction to Same-sex Marriage. For years social conservatives fought any kind of recognition of same sex relationships. The incidents of partners being denied access to their dying loved ones hospital bed, of the legal contortions a gay couple had to go through for estate planning, the inability to have their partners collect pensions or other benefits were numerous. Social conservatives fought hard to make sure legally same-sex partners were treated as nothing more than roommates. When the push for gay marriage gained steam, and it became clear in many jurisdictions that it was going to happen, suddenly social conservatives became oh so reasonable “Let them have civil partnerships, but don’t call it MARRIAGE!” Perhaps if social conservatives had been more humane, there may not have been the push for complete equality betwen heterosexual and homosexual unions.
 
First, I think we need to define “success” because that definition varies greatly from person to person. There have been several nations that have been lead by woman to include: England, Scotland, Germany, Norway, Hong Kong, Croatia, and Lithuania.

If women stayed home at only saw domestic affairs then we would not have the images of the black hole, the code that brought man to the moon, chemotherapy, discovering the green house effect, windshield wipers, Meyer Briggs Type Indicator, and so much more. Getting away from the household mentality has caused progress.
 
Please don’t blame what you call social conservatives for this. Who prevented partners from visiting other partners in hospitals? Their families. Did they not have that right? They were blood relatives and the partners were not. Two men or two women getting a marriage license is, by definition, not the same as a man and woman getting a marriage license. I liked all the gay and bisexual people I’ve known.
 
Last edited:
Sad to see the same nonsense I’ve heard since the 1970s. What about all those female babies who were killed before they were born? That’s progress?
 
How is that nonsense?

It is greatly unfortunate that so many unborn children were silence. We are called to pray and advocate on their behalf. To do what it takes to put an end to abortion.
 
It’s much the same as the visceral reaction to Same-sex Marriage. For years social conservatives fought any kind of recognition of same sex relationships. The incidents of partners being denied access to their dying loved ones hospital bed, of the legal contortions a gay couple had to go through for estate planning, the inability to have their partners collect pensions or other benefits were numerous. Social conservatives fought hard to make sure legally same-sex partners were treated as nothing more than roommates. When the push for gay marriage gained steam, and it became clear in many jurisdictions that it was going to happen, suddenly social conservatives became oh so reasonable “Let them have civil partnerships, but don’t call it MARRIAGE!” Perhaps if social conservatives had been more humane, there may not have been the push for complete equality betwen heterosexual and homosexual unions.
The Archbishop of Portland in Oregon said that allowing durable legal relationships of mutual care (that is, more than “roommates”) among adults who cannot marry each other was moral and he didn’t oppose it. That is, after all, what monasteries and convents have. The activists here in Oregon wanted nothing of legal arrangements that did not recognize the sexual relationship, which obviously the Church could not get on board with, regardless of what it was called.

So no, I think that the push was always going to be not just for equality but what we’re seeing now, which is marriage indistinguishability. There is no way the Catholic Church is ever going to pretend that there is no difference between a same-sex sexual relationship and a marriage between a man and a woman, even a marriage that is not sacramental. The Church cannot give any kind of approval to sexual consort outside of heterosexual marriage. Some things, the world and the Church aren’t going to agree about, no matter how we talk it out.
 
Last edited:
I study military history and the history of technology. One example. German scientists were brought into the United States after World War II to begin the US rocket program. No one else had their knowledge and experience. The V-2 rocket contained an internal guidance system and traveled at hypersonic speeds before the sound barrier was broken.

The propaganda I heard was false. Don’t be a stay at home mom. Why? Because we - total strangers - said so. These radical feminists were out to destroy the family. Their words were nonsense.
 
I study military history and the history of technology. One example. German scientists were brought into the United States after World War II to begin the US rocket program. No one else had their knowledge and experience. The V-2 rocket contained an internal guidance system and traveled at hypersonic speeds before the sound barrier was broken.

The propaganda I heard was false. Don’t be a stay at home mom. Why? Because we - total strangers - said so. These radical feminists were out to destroy the family. Their words were nonsense.
I have a PhD in chemistry, but I’ve spent most of my “career years” as a stay-at-home wife and mother. Yes, there are those who think that women with academic ability who don’t get into the workplace are somehow “failing” other women and failing themselves.

As for me, I don’t see much point in getting a degree if it means the degree owns you. I think couples ought to be able to decide how they want to set up their own balance of earning their sustenance, raising their children, and seeing to each other’s emotional, intellectual, spiritual and overall welfare. For our family, it worked out better for me to stay at home and my husband to do medical shift work, which gave him a really unpredictable schedule. The salary was more than enough to support us, and that meant our kids got to come home right after school and have unstructured time. We didn’t have to wonder who was going to get them to school or to practice or to games. We recognize that was a luxury that not all families can have, though, particularly not if they want to send their children to 12 years of Catholic school and then to a Catholic university.

That is another problem I have with “[Fill in the name]”-archies. A lot of time it is busybodies who think they are qualified to dictate the best choices for everybody else. Society has to have boundaries, but arbitrary boundaries invite rebellion. The boundaries have to be both necessary and the reasons behind them need to be something that can be articulated.
 
Last edited:
My mother was not told what to do in the 1940s and 1950s. She could mix cement and apply the finishing touches, do light carpentry and other work. Throughout the 1970s, as I watched the Women’s Liberation Movement, she would sometimes ask me questions. When she heard total strangers talking about The Pill, she asked me what it was. I told her. Her reply was: “That’s useless.” My mom and the other stay at home moms formed a community. A community that was devastated by anarchists and sexual perverts.
 
Last edited:
ps. STEM as normally used does not include medicine.

"STEM - science, technology, engineering, and mathematics - is the acronym used by educators, researchers, and funding agencies focused on fundamental science. "
Do you consider medicine and the allied health professions within the STEM disciplines? | ScienceBlogs

Some think it should, but that’s the normal use and how I used it.
I have taught high school, so I understand that. Fundamental science is all they teach in high school. You can take a course in anatomy and physiology, but nursing school has to wait for college and medical school has to wait for graduate work. Most of the prerequisites for medical school fall into the category of STEM, though, and most medical students pursue chemistry, biology or related majors in college.
 
Last edited:
My mom and the other stay at home moms formed a community. A community that was devastated by anarchists and sexual perverts.
I spent a lot of years as a stay-at-home mom, and I have no idea what you mean by that comment.
What are you even talking about?

I think this thread has done enough to demonstrate some of the hazards faced by a system lead by men, let’s just say that. If they’re going to stay in touch with people outside the power structure, they have to work at it and not just assume they know how people outside the power structure live. That’s pretty much true no matter who is running the government, though.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top