The subtle lie: Women must be powerful but not fruitful

[LilyM]

jlc2k2:

odd way to approach family life.

One parent stays home and raises kids to make sure they have healthy parent-child bonding vital to child

Other parent provides resources equally vital for child

It’s odd to me to call that odd.

The child has material and emotional needs. Unique needs met by parents in distinct roles. No parent is more important or less important than the other

But is it always truly equal? The parent who is bringing in money and therefore writing out the cheques for housing, food, clothing, kids schooling etc is often inclined to throw their weight around in terms of making the decisions as to where to live, what school to put the children in etc. The parent who does not bring in money often finds their (name removed by moderator)ut given much.less if not no weight at all.

For example SAHM mother and children may find themselves moving for the sake of husband’s career even when this results in less support and resources for wife and children. For example by being further away from family and friends.

 

[Aquinas11]

Then how can one be the “boss” of the other?

Quote me saying that

This is perfect example of the source of confusion - asking questions containing false premises.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

Then how can one be the “boss” of the other?

Quote me saying that

This is perfect example of the source of confusion - asking questions containing false premises.

Aquinas…

The subtle lie: Women must be powerful but not fruitful Catholic Living

@Aquinas11, perhaps others are struggling to understand your claim because you aren’t stating it clearly.

 

[Aquinas11]

But is it always truly equal?

I wouldn’t define “equal” in terms of decision making on location, school, etc. That is incomplete since ignores purpose of family - healthy raising of children and all their needs

I’d define “equal” in terms of level of importance in healthy raising of child. Both equal since one parent vital to child emotional needs and other parent vital to child material needs.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

This is perfect example of the source of confusion - asking questions containing false premises.

What do you think the heart of the argument? Which is to say, what do you think is the core issue that causes disagreement?

 

[joyfulandactive]

Let’s tread carefully here and not touch anything anti-semitic. The Orthodox community lived there for decades precisely because it was low cost, affordable housing. All of their community needs such as shuls, yeshivas, kosher butchers, bakers, grocers etc. are all within walking distance. As we all know in recent decades Brooklyn has become fashionable and expensive. The Orthodox community has in fact been moving outward to other communities for some time due to explosive growth as they have large families (typically 9+). They get married in their late teens so can easily have 5 children by their late 20s.

They are a large voting block, and have the right as any other American to vote for who they feel represents their communities needs. Their priorities are very different from the surrounding communities. They don’t have TV or the internet (unless Kosher when needed for work with all inappropriate content removed). They are close knit and share resources with each other.

After the holocaust their Rabbis encouraged large families to replace those murdered. Men were also encouraged to study to build Torah once again in the world. Like Catholics they believe to give your life to God in prayer and study is a high calling and is highly valuable, building the Kingdom of God in a similar way. Since WW2 these Orthodox communities (there are many and they do differ from each other) have been wildly successful in terms of growth in Israel and the USA. So in both countries they are having to make changes because the community and nations cannot support so many men being outside the economic system. But changes are happening. Remember we usually get our information from a hostile secular media (we know how that feels) so it is important not to judge without the full facts. They again were dealing with a unique historic moment where their communities and families had been deliberately murdered and destroyed and their response made sense at the time: rebuilding. That historic time may be passing and adaptations are being made.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

But is it always truly equal?

I wouldn’t define “equal” in terms of decision making on location, school, etc. That is incomplete since ignores purpose of family - healthy raising of children and all their needs

I’d define “equal” in terms of level of importance in healthy raising of child. Both equal since one parent vital to child emotional needs and other parent vital to child material needs.

Do you think, to take an example, that it’s ‘healthy’ or ‘equal’ for Melania and Barron Trump to be uprooted from their life in New York to Washington - where frankly she comes across as utterly miserable - for the sake of Donald’s ambition, and because he foots the bills? Do you think she would make the same decisions if she had more agency and more of an independent life and income? Do you really think he considered what was best for her or the child rather than just throwing his weight around and doing what was best for himself?

Hers is a story that often repeats itself, although usually not as publicly, where there is financial dependency of one spouse on another.

 

[Aquinas11]

he foots the bills

Taxpayer foots the bills so that’s not an example of one spouse providing child’s material needs and other spouse providing child’s emotional needs.

 

[joyfulandactive]

I really don’t think Melania is a good example as we would all expect the First Lady to be with the President and First Lady has evolved into an important role. Also if Hillary had won there was a lot of discussion of what a First Husband/First Spouse role for a man would entail. To be fair anyone running for high office would usually be having these conversations with their spouse for years before. The job is so all encompassing you couldn’t do it without buy in from your spouse.

Margaret Thatcher chose her husband Denis partly because he was very supportive of her political ambitions, which must’ve been relatively rare in the 1950s. She also was a mother of boy/girl twins.

 

[LilyM]

I really don’t think Melania is a good example as we would all expect the First Lady to be with the President and First Lady has evolved into an important role. Also if Hillary had won there was a lot of discussion of what a First Husband/First Spouse role for a man would entail. To be fair anyone running for high office would usually be having these conversations with their spouse for years before. The job is so all encompassing you couldn’t do it without buy in from your spouse.

Margaret Thatcher chose her husband Denis partly because he was very supportive of her political ambitions, which must’ve been relatively rare in the 1950s. She also was a mother of boy/girl twins.

Someone who is supportive usually makes.an effort to come across as supportive. Like I said, Melania comes.across as trapped, reluctant and miserable - the opposite of every other First Lady in my life time.

Bill and Hillary are a bit different in that they aren’t raising a child together, and unique in that he has been POTUS before. Makes defining his role more difficult.

And what was with the extraordinarily long time she and Barron took to move.to Washington? It’s not like they didn’t have years to plan for.it. Again, it does not come across as something that was thoroughly discussed and arranged between them and that they were both entirely on board with.

 

[Aquinas11]

if she had more agency

Melania comes.across as trapped, reluctant and miserable

does not come across as something that was thoroughly discussed and arranged between them and that they were both entirely on board with.

she comes across as utterly miserable

Complete speculation , not to mention off topic

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

if she had more agency

Melania comes.across as trapped, reluctant and miserable

does not come across as something that was thoroughly discussed and arranged between them and that they were both entirely on board with.

she comes across as utterly miserable

Complete speculation , not to mention off topic

Well, admitt3dly I was simply using it as a possible example of.a broader truth - that a lot.of influence.and decision making power comes with being the sole breadwinner - and it is far from always used in the best interests of either the children or the family as a whole.

 

[joyfulandactive]

It seems that quite honestly Trump and his team were not expecting to win. Apparently on victory night they all went into shock and Trump became very quiet. The team had not been preparing for the transition to the White House for example.

Trump had been flirting with the idea for years but had never run for office before. Melania had married a businessman with a long established career, not a politician. His other career interests seemed to be media not politics. In other political marriages (the Thatchers, the Clintons) political ambitions seemed to have been discussed early. So I just don’t think Melania had signed up for it. Being First Lady was not an ambition and probably seemed highly unlikely. However, being married to the President is one of those rare occasions that whatever your gender and the President’s gender I think as a nation we would expect them to be together. Hosting and welcoming world leaders and significant American citizens is an extremely important diplomatic role. Unfortunately just because Melania was not personally prepared doesn’t mean she really has a duty to her spouse and the American people. I would say the same if the President was female and her spouse male.

Although to be fair to your question. As many political couples are “power couples” these days and have equal education etc. the spouse one day could have a career which might be hard to transfer. But then should their spouse run for national office?

 

[joyfulandactive]

I actually think Melania has grown in confidence. She has had many successful international visits and also successfully planned and hosted dinners and events at the White House. She seems to be enjoying her role a lot more these days. I admire her exactly because I really don’t think she would’ve ever chosen the role.

 

[mythbuster1]

The sister who was her teacher warned her that she’d come out of State University “an atheist and a communist.”

 

[jeannetherese]

The sister who was her teacher warned her that she’d come out of State University “an atheist and a communist.”

That is not in the article either. I’m looking for quotes from the article which might give you that impression and after 2 readings, I have yet to find a source for either of your two contentions.
Here is a link to the article which is also posted in the O.P. Perhaps you could double check and respond?

The Subtle Lie: Women must be powerful, but not fruitful – Catholic World Report

 

[DarkLight]

I do believe the beginning of this latest discussion was the point that the idea of a “stay at home parent” versus an “employed parent” is very modern. In fact the whole system where the majority of the material support for the family comes from a wage earner who works for a boss is quite modern.

For most of history, the vast majority of people were either farmers or small-time craftsmen. The division between the realm of the home and the realm of the job didn’t exist. Men did indeed tend to perform the more heavy physical labor tasks, while women were more likely to need to be nursing, or to be dealing with the challenges of pregnancy. But the whole idea where one partner was gone for 8+ hours a day while the other is at home wasn’t a thing. Even craftsmen tended to live and work in pretty much the same place, and the whole family would filter between doing “domestic” duties and helping out with the shop.

 

[mythbuster1]

It’s in the link to her other article about the perverse litany she heard her sister lead.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Could you please give me a example of a job in the USA that you can get with nothing more than a high school diploma and enable you to get a mortgage and support a family of six?

One of my friends has more than 6 kids and they’re a one income family and he does auto mechanics and some detailing.

They do a lot of thrifting.

 

[blackforest]

Perfect. I queued it on Goodreads.

There’s another one called Escaping the Endless Adolescence, by Joseph Allen and Claudia Worrell Allen. They argue we should treat teenagers less as nuisances to be caged up in those glorified bubbles called high schools . . . and more as capable young men and women transitioning into and training for adulthood. It’s not entirely imitable these days, but there’s something to be said for days of yore, when they apprenticed alongside their parents or another adult mentor in the community.

It’s not related the thread, but it kind of is. Women and girls need to get the message that they, too, have skills to be developed and taken seriously. Responsible motherhood means having a way to provide for the family in case you need to step up and do so.