Is the patriarchy a good thing?

[Neithan]

I think a lot of women bought into the Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem et al. lies, that domestic work was not as valuable as industry or service jobs. Ridiculous, ill-conceived ideas with the wrong motivations and disrespectful of women in the end. Then again their ideas would not have gained any traction unless housewives actually were unhappy. Some undoubtedly were, but I think the “second wave” feminists seized on the minority to convince the majority.

In a seminar once I brought up that the influx of women into the labour market effectively destroyed the single-income earning household model because of the oversupply of new employees, and then the subsequent flat-line of wages with a drop in purchasing power through the 1980s and 1990s. The market “adjusted” of course, but now families need two employed people or face undue hardship unless one of them is in a top-tier earning profession. Has this improved our quality of life? As you point out from your family situation, this also did not improve the net economic output. I got a couple of stares from people but no answer. I guess there’s nothing we can do about it now except have lots of people voluntarily withdraw from the labour market (which might hurt the economy if they aren’t doing productive work, such as domestic labour). Automation might force that to happen anyway.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Two incomes also led to an escalation in house prices, just by putting more money into a fixed marked. Before feminism it was possible for a single income family on a workman’s wage to buy a home but now it’s almost impossible.

I hear many women complain that they have to work for the family to be able to afford a home. Their complaint is usually about working more hours than they’d like and missing the children, rather than having to work at all. Well, they can thank your mothers for that in their support of feminism.

I’ve heard the theory that big business supports feminism because it keeps wages down and makes men more disposable. This makes sense. There must be some economic reason for the support,
as these guys (and it is mostly men) don’t do it for virtue’s sake, despite the pretence.

Interesting story about the non-response you got in that seminar. Feminism is the elephant in the room of modern society, even in Catholic circles.

It’ll be interesting to see how automation will effect things (good observation!). I suspect it’ll put more pressure on wages in service and low skill jobs as clerical jobs disappear. The gap between the haves and have nots will widen, and there will be an unhappy mass of unmarriagable men.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Then again their ideas would not have gained any traction unless housewives actually were unhappy. Some undoubtedly were, but I think the “second wave” feminists seized on the minority to convince the majority.

Probably.

But why is “Are you happy at home?” even a serious question? The woman wanted a marriage, children and a man providing for her. She’s got that. If she’s still not happy then that’s her choice.

Men don’t have the option of considering whether they’re “happy” fulfilling their duties to their wives and family. If they’re not happy (which they’d never admit) the answer would be “Suck it up, Freddy”.

Yet women consider both working outside the home and divorce to be valid lifestyle choices, where their “happiness” is the main consideration. Again, we can thank feminism for that.

 

[Edmundus1581]

It comes down to what each married woman and her husband decide on together. What works for one family doesn’t necessarily work for others. As long as a wife and mother’s primary focus (after God) is her family, there is no reason why she can’t use her God-given gifts and talents outside the home, even in leadership capacity of both men and women (and I’m not speaking of the priesthood).

Primary focus is her “family”, or “husband and family”?

This is a serious question, because I think modern women are taught to definitely not put their husband ahead of themselves or the children, or to respect his authority in the home. She may well be working outside the home and saying to herself, friends and even God that her primary focus is her family, but her husband is thinking “What about me?”.

I’m not saying you implied that, but the encouragement to neglect and disrespect husbands is rife and won’t change unless women make it change. (Which some are starting to do, but not enough).

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thankyou for reading and responding! You expressed and supported your position well.

In response I would say the traditional model is the best and most natural and should be the norm, but where the balance (between norm and others) lies is something we can discuss and maybe disagree on. Also, my strongest battle, as you can see, is with the feminist approach, where the mother’s “happiness” and decisions take priority, and you have clearly rejected that. I haven’t thought much about what I actually do support, apart from the traditional.

My one last shot is to remind this thread that husbands have always been obliged to “work” whether they want to or not, and whether their work is particularly suited to their talents or even health, and do not have as many options for work as a “lifestyle” choice. It is still a “luxury” for a wife to choose her work, even as you describe, which is mostly denied husbands. This returns to the topic of the the thread and is a reminder that “patriarchy” restricts both men and women. Yet it works, and both men and women want it.

@Lea101 made a good observation (post 101, in response to mine) that perhaps we need to rethink “Patriarchy” in the modern world. It is a reasonable request, but I think the assumptions in my previous para are human nature, not societal. Lea and others may disagree.

In short, if husbands are obliged to work then they can expect some privileges too. That to me is the essence of “patriarchy”.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Then again their ideas would not have gained any traction unless housewives actually were unhappy. Some undoubtedly were, but I think the “second wave” feminists seized on the minority to convince the majority.

Many women were convinced they were unhappy whether they were or not. Betty Friedan’s book, Gloria Steinem and Marlo Thomas, Hollywood and the feminist movement convinced them that the job they were doing at home was, “unfulfilling”, something that “didn’t require a brain”, “subserviant”, “oppression”, “thankless”, something “invented by men” and more. They also pushed the lie that women will be happier and find better things once having a career.

Betty Friedan was married to an abusive husband and through her book she was able to convince many women that all men were abusive.

Well, everything they pushed was a big fat lie. Women are not happier or more fulfilled by having careers. Marriages and families are falling apart, women are angry, men are hurt, let alone talk about what is happening with the youth of today in regard to gender identity.

But if you say something long enough and loud enough you can convince people of just about anything and that is what feminism did, it convinced women and men of a huge lie.

the influx of women into the labour market effectively destroyed the single-income earning household model because of the oversupply of new employees, and then the subsequent flat-line of wages with a drop in purchasing power through the 1980s and 1990s. The market “adjusted” of course, but now families need two employed people or face undue hardship unless one of them is in a top-tier earning profession.

I completely agree with this. The influx of women into jobs and “careers” destroyed the single income earning household and started a huge destruction of the family.

The structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact . Pope Pius XI

 

[MagdalenaRita]

But why is loving others ‘motherhood’? Isn’t that what Jesus asked of every single human? Male or female? What is the difference between this motherhood and spiritual fatherhood that single men are called to do?

It is not just loving others that makes spiritual motherhood, but the feminine quality in women that makes it a type of spiritual motherhood, the same way the masculine quality in men makes spiritual fatherhood. As an example, a priest is a spiritual father to his parishioners, not a biological father to his parishioners.

There are differences in how men and women parent biologically and so it is spiritually. There are differences in men and women, period, in how they respond, react and handle life.

 

[Lea101]

This should be stating the obvious but is easily forgotten, and feminism would like the wife to make the decision herself. In Australia, feminism has declared it to be a form of “Domestic Violence” for the husband to impede a wife’s decision to work. Sounds loopy, but these people can get away with the most bizarre things.

While this isn’t the main point, it is considered as financial abuse to force someone to be financially dependent on you. Key word: force. This is pretty common in most abuse cases, even elderly abuse and hence why they flag this as a symptom of abuse.

In a healthy relationship, the husband wouldn’t make her quit her job. He may express disapproval but really, he isn’t to make her not work. Even in a religious context, husbands cannot force submission.

Forcing someone to work when the person does not want to is a bit different although clearly wrong in extreme cases. Usually though, the parent (who is also the breadwinner) would be guilty of neglect.

 

[Lea101]

In short, if husbands are obliged to work then they can expect some privileges too.

The issue we are seeing here is the ‘privileges’ part. What sort of privileges? We hear a similar notion too, that men need authority along with responsibility.

Some men are for stripping back women’s access to education, jobs, congress etc. Of course most men and women would see this as abuse of power and realistically speaking, this won’t happen in the Western world.

Technically husbands may not work if they find a wife who’s down to be the breadwinner instead. Of course, this is pretty rare and the next thought would be whether we should normalize stay at home dads instead. Like how we normalized working moms.

Personally I would prefer a meritocratic society and a patriarchal/egalitarian/etc structure in families as a personal choice. We are kind of seeing that. Kind of. I’m not a fan of equal outcome and we are steering into that lane as a society.

 

[Lea101]

It is not just loving others that makes spiritual motherhood, but the feminine quality in women that makes it a type of spiritual motherhood, the same way the masculine quality in men makes spiritual fatherhood.

I do get what you’re thinking, but the problem is that we cannot define the ‘masculine/feminine quality’. And how much of it is just perception?

I used to give the example of a mother hugging a scared child. People will see this as nurturance (feminine). When we change the mother into the father and leave all the variables to stay the same (eg the words said, the vocal inflections, pressure of the hug), the father will be seen as protective (masculine).

So yeah…this is why we avoid trying to describe feminine and masculine unless we’re cool with excluding a large number of people. But when we do that, we’re admitting that it’s no longer the inherent nature of man/woman.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Well, women as a general rule are weaker.

Men and women aren’t equal. We weren’t created equal in any sense other than spiritually before God. Men and women are two halves to a whole, but a not equal halves. A hamburger is half bread and half meat. But you can’t double up on bread and get a burger.

Women are only generally physically weaker. Our power of intellect is every bit as good. And then women also have strengths that men are generally weaker in, such as the ability to nurture. We are indeed two halves of a whole, EQUAL halves, not lopsided.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I do think that modern day feminism is a curse, but I felt I needed to point that out.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I do get what you’re thinking, but the problem is that we cannot define the ‘masculine/feminine quality’. And how much of it is just perception?

So, naturally and biologically there are differences in a man and a woman. A woman can demonstrate at times masculine qualities and a man at times can demonstrate feminine qualities. A man at times can appear “mothering” or a woman at times can appear “fathering” but a woman by nature is not a father and a man by nature is not a mother.

 

[blackforest]

Many women were convinced they were unhappy whether they were or not. Betty Friedan’s book, Gloria Steinem and Marlo Thomas, Hollywood and the feminist movement convinced them that the job they were doing at home was, “unfulfilling”, something that “didn’t require a brain”, “subserviant”, “oppression”, “thankless”, something “invented by men” and more. They also pushed the lie that women will be happier and find better things once having a career.

I honestly think Friedan was spot on about the very real depression that women face in the home, a depression that they were self-medicating. Stay-at-home motherhood is isolating, and the phrase “women’s work is never done” reflects the impossible standards that women to this day are expected to attain.

So Friedan’s famous quote continues to resonate with me and a lot of stay-at-home moms: “Is this all there is?”

Here’s where she missed the mark, though. A lot of people go to their jobs every day and feel the same way. While I agree with Friedan’s feminists points, (and I’ll emphasize here that I am a feminist), I think she was scratching the surface of something more profound.

Capitalism has an ugly side when it transforms people into rote consumerists - going to jobs we hate to pay mortgages we can barely afford and buy objects that ultimately don’t fulfill our yearning for happiness. Men and women have both gotten caught up in it. And it was well underway when she wrote The Feminine Mystique.

And then women also have strengths that men are generally weaker in, such as the ability to nurture.

And yet there’s nothing wrong with developing strengths - teaching men to be more nurturing, for example. My husband is a fabulous daddy who has this figured out more than men of previous generations.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I honestly think Friedan was spot on about the very real depression that women face in the home,

We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree here. I am not a feminist. I used to be but I walked away from that years ago and never looked back nor had any desire to return to that thinking. I truly do not think Betty Friedan was right at all but that she convinced women they were unhappy or caused alot of that unhappiness because she convinced them that their work at home was of little value. Well our work at home with our families, does have value.

Stay-at-home motherhood is isolating, and the phrase “women’s work is never done” reflects the impossible standards that women to this day are expected to attain.

So Friedan’s famous quote continues to resonate with me and a lot of stay-at-home moms: “Is this all there is?”

I do agree being at home can be isolating. Sadly, that is how it is today because when you are home, there is rarely any other woman at home in your neighborhood. Right now there is only one other woman home in at least a four block radius with in me. That is not how it was when I was growing up. Moms were home. They got together and they really did talk over the fence and because the woman at home is rare today it does feels isolating, she wonders what is out there.

the phrase “women’s work is never done” reflects the impossible standards that women to this day are expected to attain.

Yes, sadly these standards were passed on to us by our feminist mothers and they heard it from other feminists, television and music. Our mothers were convinced that they could do anythilng by the mere fact that they were women.

A couple of examples from the past telling women they “can do anything” just because they are a woman would be Helen Reddy’s song, I am Woman, of course now women add the phrase, I am tired.

Also, the very popular commercials from the 1970’s that absolutely did women no good at all but convinced them they were “supermoms”.

 

[blackforest]

Well our work at home with our families, does have value.

Our work may have value, but is doesn’t make us any less depressed. And how much value does it have when a woman is too depressed to provide adequate mothering?

Research and polling show us that stay at home moms are more likely to suffer from depression, and moms working outside of the home suffer from more anxiety. Long story short: Women can’t win.

Yes, sadly these standards were passed on to us by our feminist mothers and they heard it from other feminists, television and music. Our mothers were convinced that they could do anythilng by the mere fact that they were women.

That phrase was coined just after the American Revolution, centuries before women re-entered the workforce en masse. It was recited often in the 50s by housewives, who’ve standards have just moved from Good Housekeeping to Pinterest.

But whether or not they work outside the home, the idea that a woman can “have it all” -skinny figure, high salary, clean house, happy marriage, perfectly behaved children, etc. - is in itself very sexist in the way it sets up unrealistic expectations of what a woman is “supposed” to be.

 

[edwest211]

Starting in the 1970s, housing prices were artificially increased, forcing both husband and wife into the workplace. This was carefully planned. The goal was fewer babies.

Yes, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, who compared the family to “a comfortable concentration camp,” made false and misleading claims.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Women can’t win.

I think women can win. I truly believe with Christ and our imitating the Blessed Mother, we can win. Not win over men, because they are not the enemy, but win over depression and anxiety, social lies, the evil of the age, whichever it is.

Women are not doomed to a no win situation. We were created by Christ with a purpose and yes, a high calling gifted to us. We have Christ and the Blessed Mother and grace.

The same with men. They were created for a purpose and a high calling, They have the same help from Christ and the Blessed Mother. They are not doomed or in a no win situation either.

We have choices in life and we can choose God and His grace.

That phrase was coined…

It may have been phrased earlier but the feminist movement of the 70’s popularized it in music and tv and convinced women of the lie. They were very popular songs.
While I was in school, a nun taught all of us young girls to sing Helen Reddy’s song and once we had it memorized, she called the two priests of the parish in to the classroom to listen to us sing and then we all proceeded to clap for ourselves, very loudly, standing there like we were some kind of superheroes out to save the world.

We can’t do everything because we are women but we can do what God calls us to do because of His grace.

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m simply pointing out the way things are as a statement of fact with no baggage attached. I find it odd that radical feminists, total strangers, began telling women what to do starting in the 1970s. As if they were saying “Stop making your own plans! Follow us!” And where did that road lead? Shacking up, contraception and abortion as promoted today by the National Organization for Women. These radicals succeeded for a time in destroying dating.

I can’t tell anyone, aside from my relatives, what to do with their lives. I understood that my female relatives may or may or may not accept what I was telling them. Women are not stuck. They can make up their own minds. Sadly, too many are following the crowd. They think they have no other choice.

Women being told what they should do with their lives is nothing new and certainly did not start in the 70s. Except back in the day, women were told to get married and have children, preferably sons. The societal pressure for women to get married is great and the names for those women who did not get married were spinster or old maid. Nothing flattering in those terms.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[edwest211]

False comments. I was there. Stay at home moms were far more productive and flexible. People like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan did all they could to fan the flames of doubt and suspicion. These instigators, these total strangers, hated the family.

A better Friedan quote would be where she compares the family to “a comfortable concentration camp.” That is pure hatred.