X
Xantippe
Guest
Modern American Catholics are a much more diverse group than US LDS.
- Status
A
ATraveller
Guest
How does that attitude and standard Christian teaching is causing people to delay marriage?
I wouldn’t classify marriage, having children or sex a need. It’s a desire, a very strong one but not a need. I never claimed it would be easy and I wrote that following the sentence you quoted.
It’s helpful to remind oneself of staying on the narrow and right path. It’s for God. Not for yourself, not for others, not even for your future spouse though the good that comes from following God can spillover and others can benefit from it. Avoiding sin starts with a renewal of mind. I wrote that paragraph because single people are tempted and having that stuff ‘rubbed in their faces’ doesn’t help.
Maybe. Humans are social creatures and building strong relationships with each other helps.
N
Naskor
Guest
I think he is talking about how the Church has an “everyone wins!” attitude to vocations. “Not married? No problem you were never called to marriage anyway, you are called to the new vocation of the single life!”
Treating singleness as a vocation is just so the church doesn’t have to put any effort anymore in helping people obtain their vocations.
J
JimG
Guest
It seems that the real vocation crisis is not a lack of vocations to the priesthood; it is lack of vocations to marriage. Or maybe it’s both. Maybe men are not becoming priests because they don’t want to make a lifetime commitment, and not getting married for the same reason.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
So what do you define as the Church?
What kind of effort do you recommend they put forth?
O
Onestepahead
Guest
Call me a communist (I have pretty thick skin and don’t mind such slander), but I always wonder why, in this day and age, do we still struggle to make ends meet just to survive? In my very insignificant opinion, the state should provide food, water, shelter, you know, the basic things to stay alive. Sure, we cannot expect people to live equally (same wage/salary, same things), and I am hardly an egalitarian. What I believe is that if one is a working citizen, then one should have the aforementioned necessities guaranteed. If these services must be paid for, they should be paid through taxes. Taxes would be immediately taken from salary, so person x making 100 000 would actually be making 75 000 if all taxes amounted to 25 % of income. I started thinking about this idea after watching a scene from a Chinese film where the water suddenly stopped, and somebody asked, ‘did you forget to pay your taxes?’
But why not make it super-simple and cut out the middle man? Here’s what you can do – the next time you receive a paycheck, cash it immediately and go around to your neighbors’ houses and just hand all the cash to them so they can use it for mortgage payments and groceries! Then go back to work the next day and earn some more!!! Boom! Utopia!
K
Klemens_Hadwig
Guest
Well, as far as I know, arranging marriages (for lack of a better term), has usually been the domain of saecular society, so the Church never needed to act as matchmaker. As such, I really wish that families would make a stronger effort to set up their young people. I’m not talking about forced arrangements, but merely setting up dates/meetings with people that the young person in question is likely to find attractive. Anyway, I dislike the notion of dating which assumes that with the right amount of effort, people will find the right match on their own. Such ideas are based on the old romantic stories, which even if true, depict exceptions rather than the norm. But, then again, in today’s atomistic societies, everything is based on exceptions rather than the collective norm.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I wasn’t around then, but there might have been something like that at mid-century in the US.
However, has that been historically typical of the Roman Catholic Church? Was St. Augustine or St. Ambrose kept busy running dances and socials, or did lay people just get on by themselves with lots of help from family and friends?
If anything, I think that families themselves are much more to blame for dropping the ball. Here are some things that come to mind:
–not making more of an effort to socialize kids
–not socializing themselves and not being involved with their communities
–not coaching teens/young adults on dating etiquette and deportment
–not providing social opportunities for teens/young adults/not working on providing a wholesome peer group
There are a lot of good reasons for all of those things, but this area is if anything traditionally much more the responsibility of parents and families.
One thing that comes to mind is that a very large percentage of the young men who express problems with dating on CAF are either on the autism spectrum by their own description or sound a lot like they might be. Given that, it’s quite possible that they would flounder just as much if there were a vibrant singles group at their parish. (I am spectrummy myself and have two spectrummy daughters, and I think people may be overestimating the benefit of just having a group to go to if you don’t have the social skills that allow you to fit in. I know I went faithfully to my Evangelical college fellowship’s meetings throughout college without that ever yielding a nice Christian boyfriend.)
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yeah.
I’m more friendly to dating than you are, but I agree with you that people are forgetting the traditional role of the family. (See, for example, the opening of Pride and Prejudice, where Mrs. Bennet is determined to get her daughters introduced to Mr. Bingley, the eligible bachelor who has just arrived in their village.)
K
Klemens_Hadwig
Guest
I think that ‘social groups’ for young people are actually somewhat counterproductive, because these groups have an ‘official’ purpose other than setting up dates/romantic opportunities for its members. Trying to ask out a fellow group member can be especially awkward. When Uncle Wojtek or Aunt Zosia invites you to a family dinner and also invites a single young woman or man your age, the purpose is quite clear and much of the awkwardness goes away (I know that from personal experience). Although, I will divulge that I have not had difficulty securing dates in any case (when I wanted to), I always laud the efficiency of ‘family assistance.’
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Unfortunately I see this very quickly becoming a double-edged sword. We as a society have invested so heavily in sending women to college and supporting women in various jobs and industries that we have, intentionally or not, left behind the men. Women are very quickly becoming 60-70% of college graduates, and those numbers are only going up with each passing year. Why is this? Is it because we have finally broken down the discrimination barrier and women are just naturally so much smarter than men that they are taking all the school slots? I highly doubt that is the reason, but whatever it is, we have engineered a society in which the majority of higher paying jobs will be taken by women simply by virtue of graduate ratios.
Historically speaking, and I am talking 2017 to 1817 and beyond, women almost never “marry down” in economic status. For men it has never been that big of a deal to “marry down”. This is supported by modern surveys where men and women list what they look for in a potential spouse. For women, money is listed near the top while for men it is near the bottom. Very soon many women will be looking around their place of employment and their economic peer group and find that there aren’t that many “marriageable” men around because there just aren’t that many men around. And we will see an even greater uptick in 35-45yr old unmarried women using sperm donors and invitro fertilization.
Meanwhile young men will become more and more disillusioned with the culture they live in and more and more of them will desperately look for something “masculine” to define themselves by, whether that is using women for sex, joining a gang, joining some type of supremacist group, etc, and the marriage rate and stable families will continue to plummet.
If we truly want to fix the marriage problem in our society, one of the things we have to do is invest in boys with the same fervor we have invested in girls. Because currently the message they are receiving is that they don’t matter and can go and shove it.
But this is just me looking through my crystal ball.
The problem, I think, is that the church has abandoned social aspects. It’s my understanding that the church used to be a huge part of the average Catholic’s social circle a few decades back. My parents did most of the things you listed with us and it didn’t really help.
Personally, I’m 38 and have not had a practicing Catholic friend since I was a kid. Other than weekly Mass, there’s literally no reason to approach a church building. Honestly, I don’t know what the church can or should offer but when there is absolutely zero social interaction for Catholics, it makes meeting other Catholics very hard. Churches used to offer coffee and donuts or something similar after the main Sunday Mass. Not anymore.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Some thoughts:Unfortunately I see this very quickly becoming a double-edged sword. We as a society have invested so heavily in sending women to college and supporting women in various jobs and industries that we have, intentionally or not, left behind the men. Women are very quickly becoming 60-70% of college graduates, and those numbers are only going up with each passing year. Why is this? Is it because we have finally broken down the discrimination barrier and women are just naturally so much smarter than men that they are taking all the school slots? I highly doubt that is the reason, but whatever it is, we have engineered a society in which the majority of higher paying jobs will be taken by women simply by virtue of graduate ratios.
Historically speaking, and I am talking 2017 to 1817 and beyond, women almost never “marry down” in economic status. For men it has never been that big of a deal to “marry down”. This is supported by modern surveys where men and women list what they look for in a potential spouse. For women, money is listed near the top while for men it is near the bottom. Very soon many women will be looking around their place of employment and their economic peer group and find that there aren’t that many “marriageable” men around because there just aren’t that many men around. And we will see an even greater uptick in 35-45yr old unmarried women using sperm donors and invitro fertilization.
Meanwhile young men will become more and more disillusioned with the culture they live in and more and more of them will desperately look for something “masculine” to define themselves by, whether that is using women for sex, joining a gang, joining some type of supremacist group, etc, and the marriage rate and stable families will continue to plummet.
If we truly want to fix the marriage problem in our society, one of the things we have to do is invest in boys with the same fervor we have invested in girls. Because currently the message they are receiving is that they don’t matter and can go and shove it.
But this is just me looking through my crystal ball.
–The ratios look a bit different for enrollment. While particular colleges have numbers that look like the ones you cite, the national numbers are more like 57/43 for enrollment.
time.com/money/4072951/college-gender-ratios-dating-hook-up-culture/
Somewhere in my reading for this post, I came across the argument that male college students drop out more than female college students because male students are more debt averse. When they reach a certain amount of debt, male students drop out.
“Men are less willing to take on the heavy debt loads that are increasingly required to complete a college degree. When they reach the point of owing $12,500 in school loans, men “are more likely to be discouraged” than women – and to decide it makes sense to leave school and start working full-time.”
fortune.com/2013/03/27/boys-vs-girls-whats-behind-the-college-grad-gender-gap/
Also, the gender ratios vary a lot according to race:
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/
For example, the gap between college attendance for Asian men and women is only 3%.
“By 2012, the share of young women enrolled in college immediately after high school had increased to 71%, but it remained unchanged for young men at 61%.”
I have to point out that it’s not so much that young men are going to college less than they used to–but that young women are going more than they used to.
–Colleges are already quietly doing affirmative action for male students.
““Men are being admitted with lower grades and test scores,” said Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, which conducted the survey. “While a lot of people don’t like to talk about it, a lot of colleges are basically doing affirmative action for men.””
cbsnews.com/news/men-far-more-likely-to-benefit-from-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/
–A not very PC thought–the average girl is actually better than the average boy at school type stuff and is more likely to put in a solid performance in a variety of different academic areas. It’s among exceptional high-performers (especially in highly abstract fields) where male students outnumber female students. (Check out the gender split for the Nobel Prize in physics–only 2 female Nobel prize winners over the last hundred odd years–but 4 in chemistry and about a dozen in medicine/physiology.)
–There are decent-earning non-college careers for men, but not so much for women. The typical solid-earning, family-friendly traditional women’s professions are teaching and nursing, and both of those require college. There aren’t a lot of reliable routes that lead to a woman earning $20 an hour with good health insurance without college. Women pay a much higher penalty for not doing college than men do.
–I think your belief about men being happy to “marry down” reflects mid-20th century modern norms. In traditional societies, a young woman not having social position and a dowry was a major negative in the marriage market. See, for example, India.
–“If we truly want to fix the marriage problem in our society, one of the things we have to do is invest in boys with the same fervor we have invested in girls.”
Middle class families do invest in their boys “with the same fervor” we invest in girls. (Note, for example, the enormous resources poured into their sports.)
Where you get greater disparities, I suspect, is in non-middle class families–see for example the previously mentioned higher male sensitivity to student debt.
I may have screwed up some of my cites (putting some not next to the correct quote). Apologies if so!
X
Xantippe
Guest
Depends where you are. We have coffee and donuts and occasionally a Knights of Columbus cooked breakfast/brunch.
I bet your pastor would be happy to talk about coffee and donuts.
Edited to add: It sounds like you could wind up with a resource death spiral, where the less a parish does, the fewer resources it has, but without resources, it can’t pull out of the death spiral.
I suggest you have lunch with your pastor and explain your concerns.
The Latin Mass people in our area also do a dinner pretty regularly after Mass.
X
Xantippe
Guest
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
I agree with most of the above except for what wool become of unmarried men. I very much doubt the choice is either marriage or joining a gang. If marriage was the only thing stopping a mean from joining a supremacy group then he might have issues that should preclude marriage.
Instead, men will just get absorbed by their hobbies. There’s so much to do or amuse oneself with beyond creating a family.
Instead, men will just get absorbed by their hobbies. There’s so much to do or amuse oneself with beyond creating a family.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Lots of good info you have there. Just wanted to address these last points. In regards to men and women’s preferences for a spouse, that is based off current research I dealt with while in college (psych major here). It definitely makes sense for men to care less about money than women in the age of the dowry, but what is interesting is that it still persists today. For a sort-of humorous example, I remember seeing an article somewhere about women who had been scammed by sperm donor. Hundreds of women had chosen this particular guy’s sperm because in his bio he said that he was a rocket scientist or some such nonsense. Turns out the guy was practically jobless and living on state assistance (which makes sense-who is more likely to donate their sperm, an actual scientist with a real job and probably wife and kids, or the poor guy looking for extra beer money).
Secondly, when I referred to investing in boy’s education, I meant on the part of the school system. Parents will always parent. Schools, however, seem to have an uncanny knack for teaching boys that learning isn’t fun and that they all have ADD. Sports are cool and all, but I don’t think that is really investing in education.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Some thoughts:
Parents don’t always parent.
Learning isn’t always fun. In fact, learning new things is hard and uncomfortable. (See Daniel Willingham’s book “Why Don’t Students Like School?”)
There’s a whole literature of average boys throughout history not liking school (see Tom Sawyer). Boys not liking school is not something that started in 1973.
Liking school is historically a minority taste. In fact, even Shakespeare talks about boys hating school: “Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school.”
Lots of boys do have ADHD and attention/execution function problems, or at least aren’t well suited to sitting, paying attention, working diligently all day, even on stuff they doesn’t like.
School tries harder to be fun than has ever been the case.
One thing that I think is true is that there are often developmental issues with boys, so there’s good reason not to rush them into school.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
I feel that you are misinterpreting my posts.
First, when I said “parents will parent”, that was directly in reference to your comment that middle class parents help their sons at school. It had nothing to do with bad parents.
Second, I never claimed that school used to be fun for boys then in 1973 it suddenly switched with title IX. I knew that using the word “fun” would be problematic. My point was that schools in general do not address the way boys learn and they should do a better job of this.
If you are taking this as an attack on women’s education, it is not. It simply seems to me that we are laser-focused on one and ignoring the other, and by ignoring the other we are going to end up with some social issues down the road.
T
ThePCWife
Guest
It would take a really long time for college education to be so gender-split favoring women that women couldn’t just marry a guy a couple years older and easily retain a husband-pool. Direct year to year comparisons are a little disingenuous because women do marry a guy 1-3 and sometimes 3-5 years older pretty typically. More than 5 years, not so much, but you can have a “gap” in attendance favoring women and still thus have plenty of college men for them to potentially marry.
Honestly, and I think a lot of people don’t really get this, but once you account for the increased life expectancy, women and men are not marrying all that late in historical terms (excluding the very short lived 1950s blip). And they are married longer, because one half isn’t dying from overwork, war, childbirth or cuts and wounds that were less curable before penicillin.
Honestly, and I think a lot of people don’t really get this, but once you account for the increased life expectancy, women and men are not marrying all that late in historical terms (excluding the very short lived 1950s blip). And they are married longer, because one half isn’t dying from overwork, war, childbirth or cuts and wounds that were less curable before penicillin.
- Status