Roles of men and women in marriage

[bitterhope]

Oh definitely. But that was the case with the older cultures that most white americans are thinking of when they talk about “tradition” - that usually means either medieval europe, or frontier american culture.

That really is unfortunate though. So much of the richness of human history and their traditions are discounted with a narrow point of view.

Not at all accusing you of holding that viewpoint or anyone else here, but perhaps it explains why so many discussions turn to disagreements and misunderstandings.

 

[exnihilo]

I was just thinking that, if you read older literature and history, the ideal was that no one really went that far from home on a regular basis if they could help it. Working for someone else was a decidedly disfavored option, for men or women - and if you were a man, you were probably expected to have your own land or own your own shop in order to get married, or at least be in line to inherit one. Being a wage worker was the lowest option, especially for a man, because you depended on someone else for your wage rather than enjoying the fruits of your own labor yoursef.

I haven’t read much, but this is the sense I get. The division of labor in modern industrialized, factory society is not the norm. In my family in living memory husband and wife mostly worked together.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh definitely. But that was the case with the older cultures that most white americans are thinking of when they talk about “tradition” - that usually means either medieval europe, or** frontier american culture.**/QUOTE]

TPCWife has done a number of interesting posts arguing that while frontier American culture is absolutely central to our national psyche, that culture was a historical aberration. People would settle land claims in very suboptimal living situations in terms of material circumstances, community life, church community, medical care (!), and the education of children in the hope that if they toughed it out for a few years, they’d be able to strike it rich. A lot of them couldn’t hack it–only 40% of homesteaders wound up earning the deed for the land they settled.

nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/bynumbers.htm

It wasn’t really a sustainable way of life for the average person.

The physical landscape of rural America (especially in the West) is very different than in Europe (or much of the rest of the world, for that matter). In the US, you have a farm house set in the middle of a farm or ranch, whereas in Europe, you typically have villages with houses clustered together. This has a lot of implications with regard to community life, specialization, and the feasibility of offering mutual aid.

 

[Irishmom2]

DarkLight;14814145:

The physical landscape of rural America (especially in the West) is very different than in Europe (or much of the rest of the world, for that matter). In the US, you have a farm house set in the middle of a farm or ranch, whereas in Europe, you typically have villages with houses clustered together. This has a lot of implications with regard to community life, specialization, and the feasibility of offering mutual aid.

Yes, and the isolation was very difficult for some to live through, especially in the winter, when housebound even more than usual. I read a novel, based on actual history of women being rounded up and taken by locked stagecoaches to asylums in the spring. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the title or author of the book.

It was a very difficult life back then.

 

[DarkLight]

There are single men who keep very nice homes all by themselves, even with a job, so I think it is untrue that men do not care about keeping a nice house or do not know what it involves. If they keep it at a different standard than you, that doesn’t mean they are living in “chaos,” either. It only means they have different housekeeping standards than you do.

I would also point out that someone being female doesn’t mean they have particularly good standards either. I did not come with a clean, organized bone in my body. I try to maintain something decent, but if you expect me to notice when the chrome is getting spotted, it’s probably not going to happen. And I’m still terrible at making sure all of my socks made it into the laundry.

A man relying on me to keep a perfectly clean, organized household would be sorely disappointed (a fact which I make quite clear to any potential partners).

 

[pianistclare]

I wouldn’t consider it a rude way to propose a topic. In academia this is the way essay questions are posed. I’m not a member of any secular boards so I wouldn’t know. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to propose a topic in this manner. I think there’s a general understanding the nobody is obliged to post on any particular thread. In any case do we really have to have a debate about the manner in which the question is couched? If grown adults are offended by the “tone” of a question then there’s nothing I can do about that really.

This is done on CAF all. the. time.
I’m surprised it has riled up the regulars.

 

[pianistclare]

Now I am all verklempt.

Yes, any fan of SNL knows Mike Meyers “Coffee Talk.” Here’s a topic. Discuss.
That is exactly what was said, and how I took it.

And many people know this is sort of a continuation of a different thread anyway.

Right. A very good thread that was derailed by persons with an agenda, an ax to grind, and a total misunderstanding of what the Church says and doesn’t say about family life.

The problem with all of these discussion, is that few people can cite actual stats. Most simply rant and state their personal preference, and then proceed to engage in generalizations.

We all have to be at peace with our choices. Sometimes our vision gets clouded by what the popular opinion, or what we perceive as “tradition” which can be far from what tradition really says.

At the end of the day we have God given talents, and a path that He wants us to follow.
So long as we are living holy, just lives, it doesn’t matter if someone thinks you should stay home, or HE should stay home, or whether or not you can or can’t afford dance lessons.
Following the will of God, and discerning what that is with a good Spiritual Director or through a well formed conscience is what comes FIRST. Everything else sort of falls into place.
And maybe what works for THEM, doesn’t exactly work for US.
Is it holy and proper for your family? Does it make you a better person, mother, father? Is your family thriving? THOSE are the barometers.

Not some pithy words from someone who doesn’t have any life experience but has just read a lot of stuff on the internet. When people use religion, any religion to push their own agenda, I turn off. That’s not it’s purpose. The purpose of faith is to grow our relationship with God, do well in this life, and move on to eternal life.

Take a job that will support your family and allow for time with them.
Buy a car you can afford.
Wear what you want to church so long as it’s clean
And if you see someone with clothes that are not clean in Mass? God love them. Ask them how you can help them. Because you have selected a career and vocation that enables you to do that.

Thanks Adam. I’m sorry your other thread went haywire.

 

[DarkLight]

But how will they know we are good Catholics without our endless bickering and telling everyone how much holier we are?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But how will they know we are good Catholics without our endless bickering and telling everyone how much holier we are?

And how much somebody else is sinning, don’t forget that

 

[mommy_k]

Now I am all verklempt.

Yes, any fan of SNL knows Mike Meyers “Coffee Talk.” Here’s a topic. Discuss.
That is exactly what was said, and how I took it.

And many people know this is sort of a continuation of a different thread anyway.

Verklempt.

 

[tafan]

The “traditional” roles of woman in the home and man in the workplace are not actually something that comes from Catholic tradition per se, but actually from the upper class during the Elizabethan era through to the early 20th century. Upper-class families could afford to survive on a single income but the working class families had to work out of necessity, in order to survive. Actual traditional women’s roles, for the “average” family would be Nurse, Maid, Nanny, Wet Nurse, Schoolmistress, Tutor etc as opposed to SAHM.

Assuming the above is true, Catholics, wile recognising that it is beneficial for one parent to look after kids full-time, should avoid rigidity about so-called traditional gender roles.

Discuss.

I think your initial assumptions are a bit off.

I would say that working class families needing the wife to work outside the home in order to survive was a phenomena of industrial age capitalism, so it doesn’t have that big of history either.
If we go back before that, middle ages through the late 18th century, we would likely see working class families in a couple of forms: on farms (inclusive of peasants), and the wife often suppied plenty of labor on the farm, but did not work outside the house. Members of a skill (ie blacksmiths, carpenters, etc), and those wifes may have worked outside the house but I suspect it was not the norm.
In either case, the wife’s primary role was the house and raising the children.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I was just thinking that, if you read older literature and history, the ideal was that no one really went that far from home on a regular basis if they could help it. Working for someone else was a decidedly disfavored option, for men or women - and if you were a man, you were probably expected to have your own land or own your own shop in order to get married, or at least be in line to inherit one. Being a wage worker was the lowest option, especially for a man, because you depended on someone else for your wage rather than enjoying the fruits of your own labor yoursef.

Also, prior to the Industrial Revolution, it was rare for a “commoner” to ever visit any place that was more than 100 miles from their residence, in their whole lives. Even those who could afford horses, would require at least a day to make such a journey. Now, people routinely travel 100 miles a day merely to commute to work and back.

Oh definitely. But that was the case with the older cultures that most white americans are thinking of when they talk about “tradition” - that usually means either medieval europe, or** frontier american culture.**

And some idolize 1950s culture as the pinnacle of Western civilization before the Evil Modernist barbarians swept in and led everyone astray.

TPCWife has done a number of interesting posts arguing that while frontier American culture is absolutely central to our national psyche, that culture was a historical aberration. People would settle land claims in very suboptimal living situations in terms of material circumstances, community life, church community, medical care (!), and the education of children in the hope that if they toughed it out for a few years, they’d be able to strike it rich. A lot of them couldn’t hack it–only 40% of homesteaders wound up earning the deed for the land they settled.

nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/bynumbers.htm

It wasn’t really a sustainable way of life for the average person.

I remember when you posted from her blog before, Xantippe.

Was it the same poster who pointed out that the vast majority of “SAHMs” did not actually do all the childcare, housework, and education of their children themselves, but got help from the older children, extended relatives, even teenagers living next door?

And this is still actually the case even for such families such as the Duggars and Bates. The Duggars have their infamous “buddy system” and Jana being the “Stay at home Daughter” who is in charge of much of the day to day care of her younger siblings. The Bates have openly mentioned hiring young women as “mother’s helpers” and at least one of their daughters worked for another family in such a capacity.

So IMHO the idea that “the perfect mother stays at home with the kids, cooks healthy nutritious meals for them, keeps the house spotlessly clean, and provides an excellent home school education from both a secular and religious way, ALL BY HERSELF” to me is just as unrealistic as the idea, oft-derided by the traditionalists as “feminist”, that “Super Mom” can hold down both a full time career outside the home and be full time mothers at home. I have also noticed many deride working moms as “part time mothers” yet would never dream of deriding fathers that way, indeed some find it ideal that a man work two, even three jobs to provide for his family even if that means he only sees his kids an hour a day.

I would also point out that someone being female doesn’t mean they have particularly good standards either. I did not come with a clean, organized bone in my body. I try to maintain something decent, but if you expect me to notice when the chrome is getting spotted, it’s probably not going to happen. And I’m still terrible at making sure all of my socks made it into the laundry.

A man relying on me to keep a perfectly clean, organized household would be sorely disappointed (a fact which I make quite clear to any potential partners).

Same with me. And same with my own mother. Both of us are not the best at household tasks and have hoarding tendencies. My mother eventually learned to cook, but this was not the case for her when she was younger, and her sisters can still hardly believe that she is able to make decent meals, without poisoning everyone. My father is the one who tries to keep their residence well organized. But there is still a lot of dust and clutter I encounter whenever I visit.

 

[Xantippe]

A

I remember when you posted from her blog before, Xantippe.

Was it the same poster who pointed out that the vast majority of “SAHMs” did not actually do all the childcare, housework, and education of their children themselves, but got help from the older children, extended relatives, even teenagers living next door?

**And this is still actually the case even for such families such as the Duggars and Bates. The Duggars have their infamous “buddy system” and Jana being the “Stay at home Daughter” who is in charge of much of the day to day care of her younger siblings. ** The Bates have openly mentioned hiring young women as “mother’s helpers” and at least one of their daughters worked for another family in such a capacity.

**So IMHO the idea that “the perfect mother stays at home with the kids, cooks healthy nutritious meals for them, keeps the house spotlessly clean, and provides an excellent home school education from both a secular and religious way, ALL BY HERSELF” to me is just as unrealistic as the idea, oft-derided by the traditionalists as “feminist”, that “Super Mom” can hold down both a full time career outside the home and be full time mothers at home. ** I have also noticed many deride working moms as “part time mothers” yet would never dream of deriding fathers that way, indeed some find it ideal that a man work two, even three jobs to provide for his family even if that means he only sees his kids an hour a day.

Yes, the blog is here:

thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/

And here’s a relevant post:

thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/a-short-version-of-most-of-my-blog-posts/

That’s mostly a link to a piece on historical Western European marriage and family formation patterns starting in about the 16th century, but to sum it up very briefly, there’s a well-established pattern of later marriage for women (early 20s and even up into the late 20s depending on circumstances), with girls and young women being employed before marriage. You had later marriage for women, less universal marriage for women/i.e. more spinsters, lower infant mortality and lower birthrates. This oscillated a lot depending on circumstances–so after the potato famine in Ireland, average age of first marriage for women hit the late 20s, and there was a large minority of Irish men and women who never married.

Yes, TPCWife has talked a lot about how historically unusual the solitary housewife is.

Yeah, the famous large families on TV do make a lot of use of teen and young adult daughter help. There’s a fiction that it’s mom doing it all herself, but it requires a veritable army of female workers to keep these large households running, which means that these households are actually consuming vast amounts of labor if the grown daughters could be working and earning but aren’t because they are needed at home.

I agree with your point that it’s every bit as insane to believe that a lone woman can homeschool 5+ kids, cook delicious nutritious meals, keep a spotless home, and do all of that on a small income. That’s just the conservative religious version of “having it all.”

 

[gatorsmom]

I’m all for avoiding rigidity in every area where I’m not required to be rigid due to doctrinal teachings of the Church.

My husband and I have worked out what works for us and other couples are free to work out what works for them, as long as any children in the home are well cared for, the couple agree on the arrangement, and no one is committing a mortal sin.

I am not sure what more to add to the discussion since each couple will probably come to a different, personalized balance on this, so there is no “right answer”.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

As for traditionalists being all black and white, I’ve run into many liberal Catholics who think their way is the best way too. It’s not just traditionalists who refuse to see grey.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Yes, TPCWife has talked a lot about how historically unusual the solitary housewife is.

One issue I have with some who endorse a “traditional” or “complementarian” view of male and female roles is that they really base their beliefs not on actual historical fact, indeed they often reject “secular” sources regarding such facts out of hand, but out of some vague “common sense” understanding of what “God designed men and women for”.

Yet even the ideal “Proverbs wife” did more than just stay at home minding the kids and not making any income. Indeed, the Proverbs passage expressly refers to her weaving cloth and not just clothing her own children, but actually selling the cloth to merchants.

Per the New American Bible translation, found on the USCCB site:

usccb.org/bible/proverbs/31

Who can find a woman of worth? Far beyond jewels is her value.

Her husband trusts her judgment; he does not lack income.

She brings him profit, not loss, all the days of her life.

She seeks out wool and flax, and weaves with skillful hands.

Like a merchant fleet, she secures her provisions from afar.

She rises while it is still night, and distributes food to her household, a portion to her maidservants.

She picks out a field and acquires it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.

She girds herself with strength; she exerts her arms with vigor.

She enjoys the profit from her dealings; her lamp is never extinguished at night.

She puts her hands to the distaff, and her fingers ply the spindle.

She reaches out her hands to the poor, and extends her arms to the needy.

She is not concerned for her household when it snows — all her charges are doubly clothed.

She makes her own coverlets; fine linen and purple are her clothing.

Her husband is prominent at the city gates, as he sits with the elders of the land.

She makes garments and sells them, and stocks the merchants with belts.

She is clothed with strength and dignity, and laughs at the days to come.

She opens her mouth in wisdom; kindly instruction is on her tongue.

She watches over the affairs of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness.

Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband, too, praises her:

“Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all.”

Now certainly people can parse this passage and argue “but she didn’t actually leave the home to work and dump her kids in daycare” or “weaving was designated to be woman’s work and so she wasn’t stealing a job from a man” or whatever. Or that the entire passage isn’t meant to be taken literally to begin with. But I think the actual Biblical passage is more nuanced than what many Traditionalists claim when it comes to women’s roles.

Yeah, the famous large families on TV do make a lot of use of teen and young adult daughter help. There’s a fiction that it’s mom doing it all herself, but it requires a veritable army of female workers to keep these large households running, which means that these households are actually consuming vast amounts of labor if the grown daughters could be working and earning but aren’t because they are needed at home.

I do think though, that for all their faults, the enduring presence of the Duggars, and to a lesser degree the Bates, on TV shows there is a market for that kind of lifestyle. Though granted, at this point there is a “freak show” aspect to them as well, that some are watching them just so they can laugh at them.

I agree with your point that it’s every bit as insane to believe that a lone woman can homeschool 5+ kids, cook delicious nutritious meals, keep a spotless home, and do all of that on a small income. That’s just the conservative religious version of “having it all.”

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t cases of women who are able to do it, much as there are cases of working Super Moms as well. The point is that to extol that as the what God designed women for, is quite unrealistic.

ETA: And gatormom I realize some “liberal” are black and white about such issues as well. Those who think “stay at home moms” are lazy bums just sitting on a couch watching soaps and taking Xanax, or who think every child is owed a college education and that if parents don’t either plan their work lives or plan their sex lives to account for that, then they are guilty of child neglect. I even recall a snarky comment on CAF “hoping” that kids raised with many siblings will “thank the parents for forcing them to pay for their college education”.

 

[bitterhope]

It seems that people truly cannot grasp the fact that not every culture, every society, every history revolves around the European history that keeps being taught as tradition. Traditions varied and continue to vary around the world. I can assure you that my ancestors hunting grounds spanned way more than 100 miles, so they very often did travel more than that. Most Biblical figures seemed to do way more than 100 mile travels as well. Not to mention the Polynesians with their spanning across the Pacific. The Mayans and Aztecs had vast territories with messengers set up every 100-150 miles to relay messages, so I’m pretty sure they also were well traveled people.

It really isn’t impossible or “insane” for people to live in ways that are different than European traditions are. Why? Not everyone is part of European history. Also, over time, most things change and evolve. It is no longer necessary for a woman to take in laundry to make money because nearly everyone has a washing machine. Women no longer need to be wet nurses because formula is accessible. Even in the societies where hired help was the norm for those that could afford it (and that didn’t happen in all places), the ones who were the help didn’t turn around and hire others to help them. They had both theirs and the employer to take care of. There have always been those that “did it all” simply because the had to. Why should their traditions be discarded? Why is it only the upper society of western Europe the traditions that count? What makes their history more important than those of us whose history is different?

My mom worked. She made nearly triple what my dad made. He was a dad at home during the day (worked nights as a detective after the Army) while mom worked Day shift. It was very unusual for a man to be so involved in his kids life during the 60’s and 70’s, still somewhat in the 80’s as well. But it worked well for our family. No matter what past traditions or history states, find what works for your family and forget about what anyone else has to say about it. There is no need to try to justify what you do by claiming history is in your side. Chances are that the life you live does not reflect the life of historical figures you want to use as examples of proof. No one had modern appliances as they do today. No one had formula or disposable diapers. No one had climate controlled homes. No one had any modern convienieces at all. It truly not comparable.

I can assure you many of us do make life work on our own without our children being turned into slaves. I have never met a single person in real life who has hired help. We all manage just fine. And our kids do as well.

As for the Amish and cell phones–it is because the cell phones are the prepaid without monthly bills. They are not tied to the outside world the way land lines are. Just as electricity cannot be bought but generators fueled by propane or windmills or solar panels are acceptable. They don’t disagree with modern conveniences, it’s the being tied to the world that they oppose.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

No matter what past traditions or history states, find what works for your family and forget about what anyone else has to say about it. There is no need to try to justify what you do by claiming history is in your side. Chances are that the life you live does not reflect the life of historical figures you want to use as examples of proof. No one had modern appliances as they do today. No one had formula or disposable diapers. No one had climate controlled homes. No one had any modern convienieces at all. It truly not comparable.

I agree with this, and also, whatever tradition someone comes from; it has never been the case that 100% of the population stuck 100% to the traditional “norms”. Even now, in most European based cultures a man being a “stay at home dad” is not considered “normal”; this is not the same as sinful or wrong, BTW.

As for the Amish and cell phones–it is because the cell phones are the prepaid without monthly bills. They are not tied to the outside world the way land lines are. Just as electricity cannot be bought but generators fueled by propane or windmills or solar panels are acceptable. They don’t disagree with modern conveniences, it’s the being tied to the world that they oppose.

That does make sense. I have also heard that some Amish find it acceptable to use electricity-powered farm equipment as long as the electricity is “off the grid”, but that not all do. Some Amish shun “modern medicine” while others find it acceptable to see a doctor, but not to get health insurance, as they see that as tying them to the world. For not even the Amish are a monolithic bloc.

ETA: And for the record I am NOT stating “it is impossible for a woman to be SAHM these days” or “parents of large families are all guilty of child neglect” or that “all married women should work unless they are disabled” or anything like that. Arguing against a particular standard being the norm for everyone isn’t the same as stating “no one is called to a homeschooling, SAHM lifestyle, all women should work at some paid job”. Going that far would also be, well, going too far.

Just that many not all women are in situations, that mean hewing strictly to “traditional” roles is not only impractical, but harmful.