S
svoboda
Guest
I am curious, would you say that many men have been duped into the dual role of husband/father and professional?
Double standard? Methinks.
- Status
Double standard? Methinks.
S
svoboda
Guest
Instead of naming fallacies, why don’t you read what I actually said? (And if you’re about to quote me out of context, stop.) I don’t think that you think all seeking happiness is selfish. If anything, you’ve been simplifying what I say to mean something I never said so that you could say STRAW MAN!
Come on? Do you see the irony here, you’re commiting the straw man fallacy so that you could accuse me of it.
S
svoboda
Guest
Okay, I admit to having exaggerated. But, the point is that you cannot tell anyone that they’d be committing a mortal sin if they chose to live the way I outlined in my original post. At the present time many orthodox priests agree with me. As long as this is the case, Catholics are free to choose that way of life and not worry about committing a sin.
Plus, they’re not liberal priests, Fr. Zimmerman is a professor of moral theology and his views are orthodox. Some other priests I’ve asked this question were also highly educated and orthodox.
I am forcing my way of life on you? I posted this information to help Catholics why may be worried about the whole “just reasons” business. They can take it or leave it. As I said on multiple occasions, I support all humans beings in what they’re called to do, even if it’s the complete opposite of what I’m called to do.
Because I disagree with your interpretation of “just reasons” doens’t mean I am saying you can’t live the life you want to live. Go ahead and live it.
I see how silly it is to stretch another person’s statements for the sole purpose of identifying logical fallacies and accuse them of self-refuting statements.
I can see how it might be a fun thing to do, clever even. But what’s the point, really? Since you like self-reference so much, here you go: disobey this command.
S
setter
Guest
No. This is but another telling sign of the cultural PC times that there is to be equality in functional allocation of gender roles. In God’s design and purpose for the mission of the family, there should be a complementary of shared roles roles and responsibilities, including the aspects of functional caretaking. There is a good reason why fathers have been honored for being the “breadwinner” or “bringing home the bacon” as primary wage earner.
S
svoboda
Guest
But there is no equality husband is not the same as wife, father is not the same as mother.
Professions are a cultural construct. Back before civilization there was no such thing. God designed men and women to be husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.
Human beings have created professions and civilization.
So let me ask you again: how is it different for a husband and father to also be involved in a profession?
S
setter
Guest
As a hint and good starting point to have your good question answered, I would direct you to a closer examination and appreciation for the differences in design and functionality of the basic anatomy of man and woman.
If I am beginning to sound sexist as of yet, then good.
V
vluvski
Guest
Okay, my bad… I’ve contributed significantly to derailing this thread to be yet another about the role of women.
Let’s get back on topic because the issue of serious reasons is an important one. We can resurrect a role of women thread to talk about that.
Let’s get back on topic because the issue of serious reasons is an important one. We can resurrect a role of women thread to talk about that.
S
svoboda
Guest
I don’t think it’s sexist to acknowledge the differences in male and female anatomy, even ways of thinking. To do otherwise would require a great deal of self deception. It’s pretty darn obvious that men and women are different.As a hint and good starting point to have your good question answered, I would direct you to a closer examination and appreciation for the differences in design and functionality of the basic anatomy of man and woman.
If I am beginning to sound sexist as of yet, then good.
What I don’t see is how from it follows that women should stay at home and men should work. You might be able to make that argument for infant babies who need breast milk and guess what, most women take maternity leave for that, but not for older children. Men are called primarily to be husbands and FATHERS, yes fathers. Study after study shows how much children need involved fathers, how much children benefit from an active father. Who knows, maybe the intention is that women stay at home for a little bit with infant babies and men stay for the rest of the time
Incidentally, you could make biological arguments for polygamy and adultery. This is evolutionary very advantageous for men, and most mammals in fact do live this way. It also explains the desire on the part of men to be with multiple partners, with young vuluptious partners etc. And hey, Islam, the religion that will soon outnumber us allows men to have up to four wives. I bet they can make all sorts of biological arguments for that one.
Having said that, a part of women’s biology are the talents they have. I think those talents are there to be used.
M
maryceleste
Guest
You seem to be starting from the assumption that the couple is having one or two children, so that “having an infant in the house” is just a brief moment in the history of the family. This is a modern secular perspective, but not a historic or Catholic one.
Let’s say a couple responds enthusiastically to the Church’s call to be “generous” in bringing new life in the world. If they don’t encounter any serious problems (medical, financial, etc.) that would cause them to limit their family size, the woman will normally be pregnant or nursing most of the time from the time they get married until she’s in her 40’s. Now, the world will read that sentence and go,
… but this is natural. It’s how the body works. It’s God’s design. And it’s quite tricky to reconcile with paid work outside the home (though it can be done succesfully, to a limited extent).I agree that “Daddy going off to work in the morning” isn’t the best arrangement for family life. It’s more of an unfortunate byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Few modern American families are blessed with the opportunity to have a home-based business where everyone can pitch in, as used to be the norm. In that situation, the dad could be much more involved in the children’s education, especially as regards teaching them the family trade. The little ones would still need their mother for basic physical care, but the older ones could help a lot with this.Men are called primarily to be husbands and FATHERS, yes fathers. Study after study shows how much children need involved fathers, how much children benefit from an active father. Who knows, maybe the intention is that women stay at home for a little bit with infant babies and men stay for the rest of the time
Interestingly enough, this “ideal” arrangement would bring us full circle to a scenario where large families are seen as a wise investment materially, as well as spiritually and emotionally.
No one’s denying that. But there are many ways for women to use those talents, while dedicating themselves primarily to bearing and raising children. Do these ways involve compromise? Of course. So does balancing a paid, full-time career with a small family. The difference is that, in the first case, the career goals are sacrificed to some degree, so that the family might flourish. In the second case, neither the career nor the family will truly get to “blossom” to its fullest possible extent. It seems to me that this scenario could only result in a constant low-grade frustration – not a greater sense of fulfillment.
BTW, I believe that our society could do a FAR better job of supporting women so that “staying home with children” and “working or studying” didn’t have to seem like such absolute, either-or choices. All sorts of things could help: drop-in child care, bosses who don’t demand “full-time performance” from part-time employees, etc. But that’s off-topic for this thread. Don’t even get me started!
K
Kendy
Guest
I actually know quite a few women who have very successful career and happy small families. The woman who was the dean at my college and is now a college president. My aunt who works as a senior manager in an international IT firm (mother of two wonderful girls). My mother’s friend who is the head nurse in her department (mother of four). My college advisor, who was both of the most popular professor on campus and a mother of two seemingly happy well-adjusted human beings.
It’s obviously not for every woman, but it can be done.
Kendy
S
svoboda
Guest
If you ask me, this kind of emphasis on biology is dangerous. Polygamy = alpha males who kill/fight off/cast out inferior males and harems of many females makes a great deal of sense biologically. It works for many species. Some males even go as far as take over harems and kill the infants fathered by previouis males, which also makes sense biologically: why expend resources raisng children who don’t carry your genes?the woman will normally be pregnant or nursing most of the time from the time they get married until she’s in her 40’s. Now, the world will read that sentence and go,
Polygamist religions such as fundamentalist Mormonism and Islam are closer to nature than we are. Apes, our closest ancestors have alpha males who rule the females etc. The biological argument for polygamy vs. monogamy is very strong. Even the Biblical patriarchs had concubines and multiple wives. I bet this is what we would have now if society descended into anarchy.
Polygamist Mormoms also have women have one baby after the other, in fact, their alpha males even read up on breeding practices to make sure to hit every wife when she’s fertile. From the perspective of evolution all this makes perfect sense: the more women a man has, the more offspring he leaves behind, the more chances his DNA gets passed on and guess whose DNA we have nowadays, whose DNA modern men have. Adultery makes perfect sense too, nothing like having another man protect your genetic offspring thinking it’s his. Notice how in the Bible adultery is always in the context of having sex with another man’s wife, not a married man having sex with an unmarried woman. Married men back then had concubines/more than one wife. Not letting other men touch your wives is a way to ensure that you aren’t raising another man’s kids.
If you want to go the biological route, that’s up to you. But I think the thing that distinguishes us from most animals and where we are closest to God is in our ability to rise above animal nature and to manipulate the physical world through the use of our minds.
I think our minds/intellect is what makes us human. I see nothing wrong with rising above biology. For one, that’s what medicine is all about.
S
svoboda
Guest
I agree. I live in Canada and here we are planning to make a national day care system. Free, government provided, quality day care facilities for all children to spend the day in cared by qualified professionals and learning to read/do maths etc. That sounds great to me, hopefully we get around to doing it.BTW, I believe that our society could do a FAR better job of supporting women so that “staying home with children” and “working or studying” didn’t have to seem like such absolute, either-or choices. All sorts of things could help: drop-in child care, bosses who don’t demand “full-time performance” from part-time employees, etc. But that’s off-topic for this thread. Don’t even get me started!
It might sound strange to you if you’re an American, but the type of public services we have here are great. Our education system is great (I got a much better education at a typical public school here than my American friend at a high-cost private school, and very importantly poor people have access to the same education), we have free health care for everybody (which we need to improve, but in my opinion this is far better than the unisured people in US). So don’t get spooked by government provided daycare or something!
M
maryceleste
Guest
I’m not sure who you mean by “we.” Last I heard, Canadians had just voted in a conservative Prime Minister, who won a lot of support by promising to scrap the proposed national day care system in favor of a “child care credit” that families could spend as they pleased.
The thing is, not all parents want to put their children in institutional day care. Not even most do, I’d say. Many parents would rather use the money to pay a friend, relative, or neighbor to watch their children on a casual basis, as needed. Maybe they’d like to buy equipment and supplies to set up a cooperative drop-in nursery school at their church. Or maybe a stay-at-home mother would like to hire a teenage “mother’s helper,” to play with the little ones and give her some time to work on a project of her own. Or maybe… just maybe… they’d like to use the money to pay some household expenses, so they could afford to have the mother stay home in the first place. (What a radical concept!)
Why should the government take these people’s money away and spend it on a program they don’t want to use?
I guess, when I said “society can do more to help,” I should have clarified that by “society,” I just meant “we and our fellow citizens.” I’m not sure how familiar you are with Catholic social teaching, but even a basic understanding of the principle of subsidiarity would seem to indicate that a national day care program is a bad idea.
Haven’t you heard of Hillary Clinton? Surely her broomstick has strayed into Canadian airspace from time to time.
Anyway, she’s a big promoter of the idea of a massive national day care system. So the concept isn’t strange to Americans. (Well, not “strange” in the sense of “foreign,” anyway. )As it happens, though, I’m a Canadian. I’ve been living in the US for several years, and I’m married to a man who’s well-nigh obsessed with politics and economics.
So I believe I’ve got a pretty good sense of the pros and cons of both systems, especially from the perspective of Catholic family life. I don’t want to sidetrack this thread any further, so I’ll just make one point that’s somewhat relevant to the NFP discussion.Canadian women are allowed to take up to a year of pregnancy/parental leave without the risk of losing their jobs, and they’re eligible to collect Employment Insurance benefits (55% of their salary) during this time. This obviously places a great burden on their employers, who have to pay the EI premiums, find temporary replacements for the employees, and – in some provinces – continue paying the premiums for the employees’ benefits until they return. This burden is then indirectly passed on to all employees, male and female, in the form of lower salaries.
In part because of supposedly “family-friendly” policies like this, Canadian families have a lower disposable income than Americans do. As a result, relatively few Canadian women feel that they can afford to stay home with their children after their maternity leave is over. They’re also less likely than Americans to feel that they can afford to have a large family.
I have memories of a colleague crying in the elevator on her first day back from maternity leave, as she showed us the photographs of the baby girl she’d had to leave. She told us it broke her heart.
I don’t know if she would have been able to stay home with her daughter if they’d lived in the US, but, based on my own observations in both countries, I think the odds would have been better.Anyway, you can make of that what you will.
BTW, I have to ask… are you related to Petr Svoboda?
(A former NHL hockey player, for all you non-Canucks. )
M
maryceleste
Guest
By “blossom to its fullest extent,” I wasn’t primarily referring to the happiness of the individual family members.
Imagine that three couples were each given a similar-sized piece of land, and a bag of flower seeds.
Couple #1 planted a few seeds, but left the rest in the bag. They grew a small patch of flowers in a corner of their land. This left them with more time to do other work outside the garden.
Couple #2 planted all the seeds they could, and grew as many flowers as their time, energy, and material resources would allow. Their piece of land was filled with flowers.
The individual flowers might be just as beautiful in each case… but whose garden blossomed more fully?
K
Kendy
Guest
There is no way to know whether or not an individual has blossomed fully. The only thing we can judge is to what extent have these children internalized the values that the parents tried to instill and are they well-adjusted and productive members of society.
Kendy
K
Kendy
Guest
I don’t know why people feel the need to attack Hillary Clinton personally. I disagree with her, but calling her a witch is hardly justified. She is not more mean-spirited than most politicians and she is certainly less so than some.Haven’t you heard of Hillary Clinton? Surely her broomstick has strayed into Canadian airspace from time to time.
Kendy
M
maryceleste
Guest
You seem to be missing my point. I wasn’t talking about the individual blossoming. I was talking about the family blossoming. “More children” = more life, more love, more immortal souls who can reach heaven, and more opportunities for parents and sibilings to grow in faith and holiness. It really is that simple. (God IS love… and look at how many children He has.
) So, if we’re going to say “no” to this gift, it will be with regret that another child isn’t part of God’s plan for us right now… and for a serious reason, i.e., a greater good.For instance, one might argue that it’s reasonable for a given woman to limit her family size if she happens to have exceptional gifts in, say, pro-life or missionary work. But I’m not sure how you could say the same of a woman who chooses to work as a college dean or an IT manager. While those are good things in themselves, they’re not at all equal to cooperation in God’s “supreme gift” of bringing new life into the world.
Okay, it was a cheap shot. But please understand that people don’t generally call Mrs. Clinton a “witch” because they think she’s “mean-spirited.” It’s because she’s avidly seeking to become the most powerful person on earth, and is determined to use that power to promote aspects of her own agenda which are in blatant violation of the laws of God and the rights of families.
C
Consecrated
Guest
Ahem. Don’t you mean Mrs. Rodham-Clinton? :tsktsk:
P
Palamite
Guest
svoboda,
You are right though, nature in and of itself (or more to the point, left ot our own subjective interpretations) is not a sure guide. This is why ultimatly, for Christians, the Scriptures and ecclessiastical tradition serve as a guide and corrective. And if you don’t accept that - well, there isn’t much more for us to talk about.
Of course there are two standards - because the two sexes are not the same. The crazy idea that the only thing seperating men and women is the arrangement of a few parts of their anamoty always confuses me - it is a fantasy.
You are right though, nature in and of itself (or more to the point, left ot our own subjective interpretations) is not a sure guide. This is why ultimatly, for Christians, the Scriptures and ecclessiastical tradition serve as a guide and corrective. And if you don’t accept that - well, there isn’t much more for us to talk about.
K
Kendy
Guest
My college dean had a significant impact on the lives of thousands of women. She inspired us through her writing and her leadership. Somebody has to run the university and she did an awesome job. She shaped women who are going to influence the lives of many people as mother and professionals. I don’t see how that is less important than her having more children.You seem to be missing my point. I wasn’t talking about the individual blossoming. I was talking about the family blossoming. “More children” = more life, more love, more immortal souls who can reach heaven, and more opportunities for parents and sibilings to grow in faith and holiness. It really is that simple. (God IS love… and look at how many children He has.
For instance, one might argue that it’s reasonable for a given woman to limit her family size if she happens to have exceptional gifts in, say, pro-life or missionary work. But I’m not sure how you could say the same of a woman who chooses to work as a college dean or an IT manager. While those are good things in themselves, they’re not at all equal to cooperation in God’s “supreme gift” of bringing new life into the world. .
As for the IT manager, she helps several people run their businesses. Every aspect of our lives depends on the service of business people. Their work is crucial to all of our daily lives. If we all committed ourselves to the cause of having more children, than lots of things couldn’t get done.
I run a tutoring companies. Lots of mothers depend on me to help their struggling do better in school. Often they have struggled for years and have not been able to help their children who are several years below grade. Thus, as a business person, I help families shape the lives of their children. I bet my parents would feel very sad about me dropping out of the labor market.
So, are a lot of other male politicians.
Kendy
- Status