Where did the anti-family vibe come from?

[AthenaC]

There never were “good ol’ days” and there never will be. Society had problems then, and society has problems now. Some of those problems may be different, but they are problems nonetheless.

Very wise, and very true.

The feminazi branch of the feminist movement didn’t happen in a vacuum. There would have been no motivation for it if men were the paragons of virtue that some individuals seem to think they are. The reality is, under the old system, women were way too vulnerable to the whims of abusive men. Same thing happens today to women who choose the traditional stay-at-home route. The difference is, women today actually have a prayer of providing for themselves and their children when men abandon and abuse them. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

Not that I’ve ever been there or anything.

 

[Debora123]

Very wise, and very true.

The feminazi branch of the feminist movement didn’t happen in a vacuum. There would have been no motivation for it if men were the paragons of virtue that some individuals seem to think they are. The reality is, under the old system, women were way too vulnerable to the whims of abusive men. Same thing happens today to women who choose the traditional stay-at-home route. The difference is, women today actually have a prayer of providing for themselves and their children when men abandon and abuse them. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

Not that I’ve ever been there or anything.

Yep.

 

[edwest2]

In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with a woman joining the army, being a CEO, or making as much money as a man.

Though I plan on being a stay at home mom myself, I can definitely see the benefits of having a career to fall back on in case (heaven forbid) something happens to the husband.

I’d also like to point out that the “good old days” before the feminine revolution where times when women weren’t allowed to vote, didn’t get paid the same wage for doing the same work, and were often physically abused by their husbands - with little or no consequences, since this wasn’t frowned upon like it is today.

There never were “good ol’ days” and there never will be. Society had problems then, and society has problems now. Some of those problems may be different, but they are problems nonetheless.

Never were good old days? I lived them. I was there.

In the 1970s, the National Organization for Women, if it really cared about women, had the perfect opportunity to help solve some of the problems you mentioned, but they chose not to. Did they protest in front of Adult Bookstores that sold pictures of men degrading women? Or strip clubs? Or topless bars? No.

Who is frowning on husbands abusing their wives? When did that message go out? I never saw it or heard about it. Today, too many brainwashed men and women don’t care about being husbands and wives - just have sex, get an abortion and use artificial contraception. This is better? Not by a long shot. Not by a million miles.

So - don’t deal with anybody. Just have sex and don’t even exchange names. And let’s just give up on solving any problems.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Very wise, and very true.

The feminazi branch of the feminist movement didn’t happen in a vacuum. There would have been no motivation for it if men were the paragons of virtue that some individuals seem to think they are. The reality is, under the old system, women were way too vulnerable to the whims of abusive men. Same thing happens today to women who choose the traditional stay-at-home route. The difference is, women today actually have a prayer of providing for themselves and their children when men abandon and abuse them. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

Not that I’ve ever been there or anything.

Yep, I heard that back in the 1970s from the men haters. These vicious people hated the family. In the 1960s, on the occasion that the man disappeared and left the woman with the kids - the radical fear mongers never mentioned the family. Women had mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles who could and would take them in until they got back on their feet.

We had generations of grandfathers, grandmothers, and even neighbors, who would take you in. No-Fault Divorce was the perfect sledgehammer. Destroy all those intergenerational ties. Destroy the support network.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

Never were good old days? I lived them. I was there.

In the 1970s, the National Organization for Women, if it really cared about women, had the perfect opportunity to help solve some of the problems you mentioned, but they chose not to. Did they protest in front of Adult Bookstores that sold pictures of men degrading women? Or strip clubs? Or topless bars? No.

:ehh:

Ed, I don’t think you have a very good knowledge of feminism. In the 1970s there was a strong anti-pornography stance by leading feminists, in particular Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. Several campaigns against pornography in the 1970s were led by feminists. These campaigns involved not only protests, but educating the public about the harm of the sex industry and pushing legislation to curb the things you mentioned.

I was teenager during the 1970s, and far removed from the cultural battles, but I remember reading and hearing about them.

 

[Calliso]

Very wise, and very true.

The feminazi branch of the feminist movement didn’t happen in a vacuum. There would have been no motivation for it if men were the paragons of virtue that some individuals seem to think they are. The reality is, under the old system, women were way too vulnerable to the whims of abusive men. Same thing happens today to women who choose the traditional stay-at-home route. The difference is, women today actually have a prayer of providing for themselves and their children when men abandon and abuse them. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

Not that I’ve ever been there or anything.

Exactly the radical feminist movement didn;t happen because things were just great for women back then. And now at least women do have a much easier chance of not only getting out of an abusive situation but also supporting herself. And yes some people had family to fall back on but not all would have family willing to help. Some women truly would have been on their own. But the fact that quite a few women stayed in bad relations because they felt they had no choice.

 

[In_Training]

Why on earth would anyone be against this kind of life, or not want it, or make disparaging remarks and prefer to be single or at least married-with-no-kids? I just don’t get it, it totally boggles my mind. There is such a strong anti-family sentiment especially amongst younger people and intellectual types.

Why do some people like chocolate ice cream and some people prefer vanilla? Just because something makes you insanely happy doesn’t mean everyone has the same feelings as you. We’re not all the same as you. Different things make different people happy.

It’s just not normal- pretty much all other cultures in the world glorify family and hold it to be life’s greatest good. I studied Chinese for 3 years in college and the character for “good” consists of a woman, a child, and a roof. I’m not making this up.

A woman, a child, and a roof…are we missing someone in this “family”?

Just because something is “normal” to you doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong or right. All it means is that it’s common. Culture dictates what’s “common” - the word “normal” exists as in, what’s normal for my family might not be normal for yours. In some cultures it’s normal/common for a man to have 10 wives, or for children to drink milk with cow blood in it. We in Western Christian societies think that’s gross, but what if a kid came up to you with a glass of blood-milk and said, “I just don’t get why people don’t love this as much as I do, I’m so happy when I drink this blood-milk and if it doesn’t make you insanely happy then what’s wrong with you?”

Please… someone help me understand where this idea came from, why so many people believe in it, and what the heck is wrong with the world!

There’s nothing wrong with the world, it’s just a combination of human differences, similarities, bonds, and interests. Obviously not every human alive in the world will all agree with each other about what makes them happy. It doesn’t mean the world is problematic or a bad place just because some people are different from you personally.

People marrying at later ages or controlling how many children they have or don’t have is not anti-family. Actually it seems to me to be family planning. If you were 20 years old and hadn’t found the love of your life yet, would you marry the next person you saw just so people wouldn’t think you were anti-family? Family means different things to different people. Just because someone is not married with 4 children doesn’t mean they are anti-family. I don’t have children…does that mean I don’t have a family, or that I’m anti-family because I’m not ready to get married?

 

[In_Training]

I think you paint a perfect picture of the ideology the OP is trying to understand. Me, my free time, my job, my right to relax, my freedom. **Me. Me .More me. **
I think this is the answer to the question.

I think you articulated the exact dividing line here. The assumption that people who don’t have children are all selfish, self-centered people who don’t want to be bothered.

Children are a part of life but guess what else is? You, your occasional free time, your job, your responsibility to provide an income, your right to relax every once in a while. Just because you have kids doesn’t mean you are a slave to them…that would be unhealthy to have your kids run your life and leave no room for you to have any personality left. You have to take care of yourself before you can take care of someone else… I have additional responsibilities besides just being a baby factory for my wife, and expecting her to be nothing more in return.

Such harsh and immediate judgment, criticism and demonization from people who claim to be Christ-followers. Don’t set someone’s shoes on fire unless you’ve walked a mile in them yourself and feel that Christ would strike that match as much as you would.

 

[edwest2]

:ehh:

Ed, I don’t think you have a very good knowledge of feminism. In the 1970s there was a strong anti-pornography stance by leading feminists, in particular Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. Several campaigns against pornography in the 1970s were led by feminists. These campaigns involved not only protests, but educating the public about the harm of the sex industry and pushing legislation to curb the things you mentioned.

I was teenager during the 1970s, and far removed from the cultural battles, but I remember reading and hearing about them.

Even so, it appears their voices were drowned out. There is no such thing as a sex industry, only prostitution and degradation. Speaking of prostitution.

newsone.com/1788515/now-jocelyn-morris-prostitution/

And after the 1970s, the types of porn made available just got worse and worse.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think you articulated the exact dividing line here. The assumption that people who don’t have children are all selfish, self-centered people who don’t want to be bothered.

Children are a part of life but guess what else is? You, your occasional free time, your job, your responsibility to provide an income, your right to relax every once in a while. Just because you have kids doesn’t mean you are a slave to them…that would be unhealthy to have your kids run your life and leave no room for you to have any personality left. You have to take care of yourself before you can take care of someone else… I have additional responsibilities besides just being a baby factory for my wife, and expecting her to be nothing more in return.

Such harsh and immediate judgment, criticism and demonization from people who claim to be Christ-followers. Don’t set someone’s shoes on fire unless you’ve walked a mile in them yourself and feel that Christ would strike that match as much as you would.

“baby factory” Another term I heard often in the 1970s. We still had a lot of stable families. There is no demonization going on here. I lived in a mostly stable Catholic community. We are currently living in what Pope Benedict calls the Dictatorship of Relativism which is also fueled by what he said was Indifference.

I was born in the mid-1950s - a period some lie about. They call it the time of the baby factories. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was 2. And there was no birth control pill.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Why do some people like chocolate ice cream and some people prefer vanilla? Just because something makes you insanely happy doesn’t mean everyone has the same feelings as you. We’re not all the same as you. Different things make different people happy.

A woman, a child, and a roof…are we missing someone in this “family”?

Just because something is “normal” to you doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong or right. All it means is that it’s common. Culture dictates what’s “common” - the word “normal” exists as in, what’s normal for my family might not be normal for yours. In some cultures it’s normal/common for a man to have 10 wives, or for children to drink milk with cow blood in it. We in Western Christian societies think that’s gross, but what if a kid came up to you with a glass of blood-milk and said, “I just don’t get why people don’t love this as much as I do, I’m so happy when I drink this blood-milk and if it doesn’t make you insanely happy then what’s wrong with you?”

There’s nothing wrong with the world, it’s just a combination of human differences, similarities, bonds, and interests. Obviously not every human alive in the world will all agree with each other about what makes them happy. It doesn’t mean the world is problematic or a bad place just because some people are different from you personally.

People marrying at later ages or controlling how many children they have or don’t have is not anti-family. Actually it seems to me to be family planning. If you were 20 years old and hadn’t found the love of your life yet, would you marry the next person you saw just so people wouldn’t think you were anti-family? Family means different things to different people. Just because someone is not married with 4 children doesn’t mean they are anti-family. I don’t have children…does that mean I don’t have a family, or that I’m anti-family because I’m not ready to get married?

More Dictatorship of Relativism. Nothing can be known for certain. It’s all good. “Hey. What’s the big deal?” And take immediate offense - personal offense - when what is true is presented as the truth. When you have the right answer, there is no other right answer.

Sure, circumstances may vary, but the good choices are clearly defined and beneficial for all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Debora123]

Never were good old days? I lived them. I was there.

In the 1970s, the National Organization for Women, if it really cared about women, had the perfect opportunity to help solve some of the problems you mentioned, but they chose not to. Did they protest in front of Adult Bookstores that sold pictures of men degrading women? Or strip clubs? Or topless bars? No.

Who is frowning on husbands abusing their wives? When did that message go out? I never saw it or heard about it. Today, too many brainwashed men and women don’t care about being husbands and wives - just have sex, get an abortion and use artificial contraception. This is better? Not by a long shot. Not by a million miles.

So - don’t deal with anybody. Just have sex and don’t even exchange names. And let’s just give up on solving any problems.

Peace,
Ed

Umm ok?

 

[Calliso]

“baby factory” Another term I heard often in the 1970s. We still had a lot of stable families. There is no demonization going on here. I lived in a mostly stable Catholic community. We are currently living in what Pope Benedict calls the Dictatorship of Relativism which is also fueled by what he said was Indifference.

I was born in the mid-1950s - a period some lie about. They call it the time of the baby factories. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was 2. And there was no birth control pill.

Peace,
Ed

I have not ever heard it called the time of the baby factories. I have heard it called the baby boom before. Which fit because while it may have not occured in your neighborhood quite a few people apparently had quite a few kids. I mean my dad has three other siblings and my mom is from a family of 6. And from what I hear that was pretty common.

 

[AthenaC]

Yep, I heard that back in the 1970s from the men haters. These vicious people hated the family. In the 1960s, on the occasion that the man disappeared and left the woman with the kids - the radical fear mongers never mentioned the family. Women had mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles who could and would take them in until they got back on their feet.

We had generations of grandfathers, grandmothers, and even neighbors, who would take you in. No-Fault Divorce was the perfect sledgehammer. Destroy all those intergenerational ties. Destroy the support network.

Peace,
Ed

That’s all well and good for you to say, but apparently you missed what I wrote:

Not that I’ve ever been there or anything.

It was my reality not too long ago, and my children and I would have died if not for the sociological influence of feminism, for which I continue to be eternally grateful.

You called out no-fault divorce, but it was one thing that saved my life.

 

[Portrait]

I got married 5 years ago to my wonderful wife and now we have 2 beautiful children. We have a nice house with a big backyard in a neighborhood full of other kids and we have a great sense of community here. I’m not rich (enlisted military) but I make a decent amount and it’s stable so I can keep my family well taken care of. I love life. Seriously, this is the happiest I have ever been.

I wrote that not to brag, but to lay out the next part of my post. Why on earth would anyone be against this kind of life, or not want it, or make disparaging remarks and prefer to be single or at least married-with-no-kids? I just don’t get it, it totally boggles my mind. There is such a strong anti-family sentiment especially amongst younger people and intellectual types.

I don’t understand this general idea prevalent in society, in some parts more than others (IMO, the attitude is more widespread in non-Latin Europe), that glorifies being single and living for yourself. How does such an unnatural and abhorrent ideal come to be so widely accepted?

It’s just not normal- pretty much all other cultures in the world glorify family and hold it to be life’s greatest good. I studied Chinese for 3 years in college and the character for “good” consists of a woman, a child, and a roof. I’m not making this up.

It doesn’t make sense historically, nor does it make sense experientially… I love my kids. Sure they irritate me sometimes, but I love them beyond words and they bring so much joy to my life. How could anyone not want joy, love and happiness and prefer self absorption and a very shallow kind of autonomy? So many people seem to want to hang on to a teenage lifestyle well into their 30s now, what a depressing existence!

Please… someone help me understand where this idea came from, why so many people believe in it, and what the heck is wrong with the world!

Dear mschrank,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. That was a jolly splendid post and I think that you raise some serious concerns respecting our post-Christian culture.

What admits of no doubt is that the great social upheaval of the last fifty years has been due mostly to the activity of the forces of evil. These forces are the real instigator of all our present troubles and actuate those in our society who are hell-bent on destroying norms (including the traditional family) and relativizing standards.

Since the 1960’s belief in pleasure as the highest good and mankind’s proper aim has become the dominant philosophy of life in the Westerm world. It is this unspiritual mindset that has fuelled the desire for both men and women to defer marriage to later in life or even to abandon it altogether as a bad idea. The trend among so many of todays young is to selfishly pursue a career and enjoy all that this life has to offer and have multiple ‘partners’ to satisfy the baser instincts, when the need arises. The commitment involved in married life is no longer appealing to many of the younger generation, as it would rob them of their freedom and a life of feckless gaiety. Thus, “Self-absorption and a very shallow kind of autonomy” aptly describes the hedonistic and selfish lifestyle of many young people today, I am sorry to say. Of course there are exceptions, but they are most uncommon now and are usually considered by their peers as ‘slaves to outmoded convention’.

What is deeply saddening, dear friend, is that this godless mindset has been seemingly adopted by some putative Catholics, especially women who have allowed themselves to be corrupted by aberrant radical feminist ideology. This has encouraged them to reject motherhood as the greatest fulfillment for a woman and has poured scorn on the traditional pattern for a young girl, the good pattern which began with lessons at school in domestic science and needlework, and reached its apogee at the altar rail and in the God-given duties of housewife and mother.

Yes, my dear friend, our lot is cast in very difficult times when many are detemined to remove the anceint landmarks that have given social stability to countless generations.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Portrait:

This has encouraged them to reject motherhood as the greatest fulfillment for a woman and has poured scorn on the traditional pattern for a young girl, the good pattern which began with lessons at school in domestic science and needlework, and reached its apogee at the altar rail and in the God-given duties of housewife and mother.

The Church recognizes that motherhood is not for every woman. In fact, consecrated single life is considered a higher vocation than marriage. Motherhood is not the greatest fulfillment for a woman, but rather for the women who are called to it. God did not give us duties of housewives as distinguished from househusbands. The Church does not teach this.

Second, the Church permits females beyond on the altar rail.

 

[edwest2]

I have not ever heard it called the time of the baby factories. I have heard it called the baby boom before. Which fit because while it may have not occured in your neighborhood quite a few people apparently had quite a few kids. I mean my dad has three other siblings and my mom is from a family of 6. And from what I hear that was pretty common.

It wasn’t. People forget. On my side of the street we had old people that had already had their kids before the so-called Baby Boom. There were two women next door with no kids, a house with one boy, another house with one boy and most with two. Believe me, I went to a lot of other neighborhoods and three or four was less common.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Calliso]

That’s all well and good for you to say, but apparently you missed what I wrote:

It was my reality not too long ago, and my children and I would have died if not for the sociological influence of feminism, for which I continue to be eternally grateful.

You called out no-fault divorce, but it was one thing that saved my life.

i think the problem may be is that he is projecting his own experiences in childhood and making the mistake of assuming that is what it was like for almost everyone.

 

[Calliso]

The Church recognizes that motherhood is not for every woman. In fact, consecrated single life is considered a higher vocation than marriage. Motherhood is not the greatest fulfillment for a woman, but rather for the women who are called to it. God did not give us duties of housewives as distinguished from househusbands. The Church does not teach this.

Second, the Church permits females beyond on the altar rail.

Yep exactly not to mention Portraits post is rather insulting to women that cannot have children. But yeah nothing wrong with a woman that decides to stay single. Or a woman that decides to get married and have kids but still have an gasp education and career outside the home! And still nothing wrong with a woman that chooses to stay home with her children so on and so forth.

 

[edwest2]

Dear mschrank,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. That was a jolly splendid post and I think that you raise some serious concerns respecting our post-Christian culture.

What admits of no doubt is that the great social upheaval of the last fifty years has been due mostly to the activity of the forces of evil. These forces are the real instigator of all our present troubles and actuate those in our society who are hell-bent on destroying norms (including the traditional family) and relativizing standards.

Since the 1960’s belief in pleasure as the highest good and mankind’s proper aim has become the dominant philosophy of life in the Westerm world. It is this unspiritual mindset that has fuelled the desire for both men and women to defer marriage to later in life or even to abandon it altogether as a bad idea. The trend among so many of todays young is to selfishly pursue a career and enjoy all that this life has to offer and have multiple ‘partners’ to satisfy the baser instincts, when the need arises. The commitment involved in married life is no longer appealing to many of the younger generation, as it would rob them of their freedom and a life of feckless gaiety. Thus, “Self-absorption and a very shallow kind of autonomy” aptly describes the hedonistic and selfish lifestyle of many young people today, I am sorry to say. Of course there are exceptions, but they are most uncommon now and are usually considered by their peers as ‘slaves to outmoded convention’.

What is deeply saddening, dear friend, is that this godless mindset has been seemingly adopted by some putative Catholics, especially women who have allowed themselves to be corrupted by aberrant radical feminist ideology. This has encouraged them to reject motherhood as the greatest fulfillment for a woman and has poured scorn on the traditional pattern for a young girl, the good pattern which began with lessons at school in domestic science and needlework, and reached its apogee at the altar rail and in the God-given duties of housewife and mother.

Yes, my dear friend, our lot is cast in very difficult times when many are detemined to remove the anceint landmarks that have given social stability to countless generations.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Thank you, Portrait. Well done. Please don’t forget the remnant. Those faithful Catholics that are giving up material things and even home schooling their children. The answers are there. I would like to offer the following taken from the book, Storm Warning by Billy Graham.

“Modern individualism, which is divorced from the moral foundations of Christianity and surrounded by a hedonistic society, has produced a way of life that is neither beneficial to individuals nor productive to society at large. Individualism used to expressed positively within the context of the family, the community, the church, and the government. Personal rights were subjected to the overall good of society. But individualism today no longer observes such boundaries. The cry is, ‘I want what what I want when I want it!’ Such selfish individualism weakens the very underpinnings of a nation built on strong moral foundations.” An excerpt taken from the book, Holiness and the Spirit of the Age by Floyd McClung.

Continue to build up the body of Christ. We are called to encourage one another and not faint.

Peace and God Bless,
Ed