Not sure I understand the feminist problem

[floresco]

I think every couple should find what works for them. Some people love to cook of clean, and do it happily.

I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of what most women want around the house. Perhaps their idea of clean is different than their husbands. Ordering is a bit harsh don’t you think? Really, the floor need washing once a week, so I do it this week, you do it next. Perhaps the Man spends a lot of the day keeping up the yard, that should count as house work and the wife does the inside. Maybe they work together. No one should have to order anyone to not be a pig.

I suppose this is my life. I work as much as my husband. I support our house equally. So why should I come home and cook,clean laundry, why should he watch tv while I work more?

Who decides that the floor needs washing once a week? Sharing housework equally does not mean that one person decides which jobs needs to get done and then they are divided in half. The equality starts with both having an equal say in deciding what needs to be done.

Due to feminism, many people jump to a conclusion that in a situation where the wife does more housework than the husband that it is just more male oppression women. But it is often more complex than this. Sometimes the wife wants to be control of the housework. Sometimes she is so critical of her husband’s attempts at cooking and cleaning that he becomes discouraged and gives up. Sometimes the wife is not counting many jobs that the husband is contributing to the household.

The feminist mindset leads the wife to decide her husband is unfair and start demanding he do more housework, but that might not be the problem at all. The situation needs honest communication … and not a discussion that starts from the assumption “my husband is a jerk who treats me unfairly”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Can you be more specific? Here is what I’m pointing out, and I was there to see and hear all of it.
The Marxist class warfare structure established by the radical feminists that sought to divide the sexes and not help them.

If some women felt that men, as a group, were only trying to exploit them then stay away from men. That works today as well.

It is a fact that a media supported propaganda apparatus was set up that taught women to accept the following changes:

A baby is ‘a bundle of joy,’ a gift from God. Wrong.
Contraception will free you from the burden of babies. And abortion was a good alternative as well.

Being a wife and mother meant endless drudgery and bowing and scraping to a man. I recall the following: “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!”
Solution? Get out of the house and get a career. Yeah, I read about a woman who did just that, and she was very disappointed.

I ask you to consider the following:

I was born in the mid-1950s.

Abortion was illegal.

There was no Pill.

Marriage was viewed as a partnership.

My father worked hard - over 40 hours per week.

Both my parents went without buying certain things so they could send both their children to Catholic school.

Married couples were content with what they had. Sure, they would have liked and appreciated more but they did the best with what they had

The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two, not five or 10.

We all had chores, and were happy to help our mom or dad get something done.

We were also taught, no sex before marriage.

Peace,
Ed

In thread after thread I have heard you condemn not just specific changes and trends but the idea of change itself. You have even argued against the inevitability of change.

Moreover you always idealize the ‘Good Old Days’ when you grew up (as your doing in this very post). But frankly there was a lot wrong with the world back then.

Institutional racism here in the U.S., the specter of Nuclear Holocaust thanks to the threat of war with the Soviet Union, the Apartheid government in South Africa, Soviet and American poxy wars, etc.

Frankly I think you look back on the past with very rose tinted glassses Ed.
And it makes it much harder (at least for me) to take your complaints (which are almost always about how things have done downhill since your day) seriously.

 

[floresco]

Frankly I think you look back on the past with very rose tinted glassses Ed.
And it makes it much harder (at least for me) to take your complaints (which are almost always about how things have done downhill since your day) seriously.

Well I don’t look at the past that way and I think Ed’s analysis of feminism was right on.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Can you be more specific? Here is what I’m pointing out, and I was there to see and hear all of it.

The Marxist class warfare structure established by the radical feminists that sought to divide the sexes and not help them.

If some women felt that men, as a group, were only trying to exploit them then stay away from men. That works today as well.

It is a fact that a media supported propaganda apparatus was set up that taught women to accept the following changes:

A baby is ‘a bundle of joy,’ a gift from God. Wrong.
Contraception will free you from the burden of babies. And abortion was a good alternative as well.

Being a wife and mother meant endless drudgery and bowing and scraping to a man. I recall the following: “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!”
Solution? Get out of the house and get a career. Yeah, I read about a woman who did just that, and she was very disappointed.

I ask you to consider the following:

I was born in the mid-1950s.

Abortion was illegal.

There was no Pill.

Marriage was viewed as a partnership.

My father worked hard - over 40 hours per week.

Both my parents went without buying certain things so they could send both their children to Catholic school.

Married couples were content with what they had. Sure, they would have liked and appreciated more but they did the best with what they had

The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two, not five or 10.

We all had chores, and were happy to help our mom or dad get something done.

We were also taught, no sex before marriage.

Peace,
Ed

No, that never works.

While in societies like the Saudi Arabian’s (where women are largely banished from the public sphere and regulated to the home) avoiding women might be relatively easy for men, there are virtually no societies where the opposite is true.

We men are kind of everywhere, and historically we have dominated all those areas (at least in relation to women). What you’re suggesting is completely impractical, barring a few rare exceptions (such as female religious orders operating in isolated areas).

Moreover, I somehow doubt that your suggesting that Feminists should start women only societies. Although I think that it would be theoretically possible now.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well I don’t look at the past that way and I think Ed’s analysis of feminism was right on.

Perhaps, but somebody who disapproves of everything is bound to be right sometimes:shrug:

 

[floresco]

Moreover, I somehow doubt that your suggesting that Feminists should start women only societies. Although I think that it would be theoretically possible now.

This subject gets treated in science fiction, if you would like to see it explored. * The Gate to Women’s Country* by Sheri S. Tepper is an example from a feminist perspective. A less ideologically-driven treatment can be seen in Brian Vaughan’s graphic novel Y: The Last Man.

 

[edwest2]

In thread after thread I have heard you condemn not just specific changes and trends but the idea of change itself. You have even argued against the inevitability of change.

Moreover you always idealize the ‘Good Old Days’ when you grew up (as your doing in this very post). But frankly there was a lot wrong with the world back then.

Institutional racism here in the U.S., the specter of Nuclear Holocaust thanks to the threat of war with the Soviet Union, the Apartheid government in South Africa, Soviet and American poxy wars, etc.

Frankly I think you look back on the past with very rose tinted glassses Ed.
And it makes it much harder (at least for me) to take your complaints (which are almost always about how things have done downhill since your day) seriously.

Interesting assumption. Too bad we can’t actually sit down and talk about it. However, it’s all documented and I lived through it

The topic is “the feminist problem,” not the other stuff you brought up. Nice try at distracting the reader but it’s not going to work.

Fact: We had signs on certain buildings that read “Fallout Shelter,” including the gym at my Catholic school. We knew the flight time of a Soviet ICBM. I lived in Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s at the height of the threat and I knew we were in the top 5 target category.

Fact: We played. Had fun. We slept at night. No one in my neighborhood had a fallout shelter. We did not lock our doors at night. Oh sure, we had crime and all the rest. But we got along. As neighbors, we cared about each other. Sure, there were a few bad apples but our parents told us to be polite to them, but to avoid them for different good reasons.

I suggest you pick up the following:

amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599

amazon.com/Noise-Media-saturated-Dominates-Dismantles-Families/dp/1932927948

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331337688&sr=1-1

And regarding abortion and how we, as a country, were lied to:

amazon.com/Hand-God-Journey-Abortion-Changed/dp/0895264633

The co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League had a change of heart, realized the truth and became Catholic.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JReducation]

Interesting post. I see the real problem is not the church, but the world. Women have been oppressed, lacking many civil rights. Not now but 100 years ago. Thats where this hostel move from some women.

What do I want? I want to be safe financial, I want to have the rights my husband has (vote, medical, decisions about my kids) I think I have all that. I just don’t think I should have to work 80 hours a week while he works 40 and be told that a clean house should give me my self worth. Believe me scrubbing, washing and cooking don’t lead to self fulfillment, not when everyone else sitting!

They really are social problems. What we have to remember that people don’t hang up their culture at the door when they walk into church. Remember that there is a reason why we refer to diocesan priests as secular priests. When they enter the seminary, they enter to become priests, not to change their way of life. They’re not consecrated religious who enter an order and adopt an entirely different worldview and culture. The secular priest remains part of his culture. He’ll rarely go beyond the parameters of his diocese. He will bring with him whatever he learned at home and in his community, including what he learned about women. He will have learned both good and not so good. He’ll bring that with him to his assignment.

So you’re saying that it was okay when Catholics did it, but immoral when groups like the Feminists (assuming you can call such a diverse body a group) do it

You have to make some very important distinctions here.

1. The Church is a moral authority. Feminist organizations are not.
2. These Catholics were protecting themselves from invasive ideologies and at times enemies that were a threat to their stability.
3. There were many Catholic states that were very open to non-Catholics, provided that they not do harm to the local culture.
4. Catholics never taught their people that the family, which is the basic unit of society, is a benign concentration camp as some feminist leaders have said. Catholics have always defended the family.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[opus101]

Here is something written by Pope John Paul II that might shed some light:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html (“On the Dignity and Vocation of Women”).
Also, “Familiaris Consortio” has relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Aleksa]

In this context, excoriation is effectively nagging. Denouncing a husband as useless and lazy, is not good for the marriage and is not even likely to be effective. Even if it works, it is at the cost of creating resentment and bitterness. This is not the way that spouses should talk to each other.

What frequently gets labelled as laziness is a man not wanting to take orders from his wife about how to clean the house. This is nothing to be ashamed of and is not a failure to fulfill his vocation.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it basically justifies men in thinking that any time their wife asks for help they are “nagging” and in the wrong. You can’t expect a woman to bear children, raise those children, pass on the faith, keep the house tidy, and in many cases also generate her own income without needing help. And yes, failure to help your wife when she needs it IS a failure to fulfill your vocation.And yes, in many cases is IS simply laziness, calling something what it is shouldn’t be offensive. I’m sure many mothers would also like to chill out on the couch after a day of work, but our work days don’t end just because the clock rings 5:00.

 

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmm… Methinks the words Excoriating, Lazy, and Lazy were somehow missed in the response of the previous Poster.

Everything, everything, everything is in how won couches one’s communication - yes?

 

[Aleksa]

Hmmmm…Methinks the previous poster’s patronizing tone is unnecessary.

Definition of LAZY
1
a : disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous b : encouraging inactivity or indolence

I’m pretty sure that laying around the house and refusing to help with household chores fits this definition pretty perfectly. Yeah, people may not like to hear the word used in reference to themselves and it can be instigative to use it unjustly or often, but a dislike of the word itself doesn’t excuse the behavior.

 

[floresco]

QUOTE=Aleksa;9057675]The problem with this kind of thinking is that it basically justifies men in thinking that any time their wife asks for help they are “nagging” and in the wrong. You can’t expect a woman to bear children, raise those children, pass on the faith, keep the house tidy, and in many cases also generate her own income without needing help. And yes, failure to help your wife when she needs it IS a failure to fulfill your vocation.And yes, in many cases is IS simply laziness, calling something what it is shouldn’t be offensive. I’m sure many mothers would also like to chill out on the couch after a day of work, but our work days don’t end just because the clock rings 5:00.

I told another poster that he was encouraging nagging with his advice to a woman to denounce her husband as lazy and useless. There is a difference between asking for help and scolding one’s husband.

In a situation in which a wife thinks her husband is not doing enough housework, there are several possibilities. He might be lazy. She might be controlling and demanding. It might be a combination of problems. Assuming that it always (or even usually) the husband’s fault for being lazy, means that sometimes one will be mistaken.

I suspect this willingness to assume that the husband is usually the one in the wrong is a legacy of feminism. In my experience, it is unusual for problems in marriages to be completely the fault of one spouse.

 

[floresco]

I’m pretty sure that laying around the house and refusing to help with household chores fits this definition pretty perfectly. Yeah, people may not like to hear the word used in reference to themselves and it can be instigative to use it unjustly or often, but a dislike of the word itself doesn’t excuse the behavior.

There are many reasons that a person might refuse to help with household chores, for example, resentment at demands, depression, discouragement from criticism. Laziness is one possibility among many. Assuming the motive is laziness makes it less likely that the couple will find a solution.

 

[PhilOSophia]

You wanna know why women nag their husbands to help around the house more? I’ll tell you.
**
Because women now work and mortgages have gone up to match the increased income.** They just don’t have time to do housework. So husband and wife are working to pay for a house the husband’s salary, alone, could have bought 60 years ago. Because granny is living 60 miles away and can’t help out. Ditto the rest of the family. Because all of the spare cash goes on consumer junk and credit cards so there’s none left for a home help. Because men find housework boring and unimportant.

Progress!

 

[LightBound]

You wanna know why women nag their husbands to help around the house more? I’ll tell you.
**
Because women now work and mortgages have gone up to match the increased income.** They just don’t have time to do housework. So husband and wife are working to pay for a house the husband’s salary, alone, could have bought 60 years ago. Because granny is living 60 miles away and can’t help out. Ditto the rest of the family. Because all of the spare cash goes on consumer junk and credit cards so there’s none left for a home help. Because men find housework boring and unimportant.

Progress!

Men aren’t the only ones who find “housework” boring and unimportant! Maybe there are some women out there who actually get a charge out of mopping floors and scrubbing toilets. Who knows? I do know that I am not one of them. Housework is done because it needs to be done…not because it’s fun, exciting, or intellectually stimulating!