Well it does seem though in your examples the women weren;t really given much of a choice am I right? It was just you will do this and thats thats! At least that is the impression I get. Because there are plenty of women who do wish to work and do feel satified working outside the home. I think the key thing here though is choice. Noone is going to be happy if they are forced into a certain role you know? Also what is wrong about being assertive? Assertiveness is a good thing women shouldn;t have to be doormats. But I donlt think anyone here is for aradicating gender differences. But requiring women to stay at home and limiting their freedom hasn;t lead to good things in the past. As at least a couple posters here have pointed out with their own experiences. Once again no one is for making men and women the same however if you give one gender too much power in this case men over women you can guarentee it will be abused which is exactly what we saw in the past.
Dear Calliso,
Hello again and thankyou for your response.
First, the women who participated in the kibbutz system did so voluntarily, it was an experiment and there was no coercion involved. Therefore, dear friend, it stands as a testament to the disillusionment and lack of fulfillment experienced by women when gender distinctions are eliminated and ignored, and herein lies its lesson for us today who live in a society permeated with aberrant feminist ideology. Gender roles are in the very warp and weft of our being and have been put there by our Maker, thus when we rebel against them and reject them, there are consequences to be had, for sure.
The point about the old USSR is that the original revolution attempted to minimize the importance of gender distinctions (much like our present age) and this reaped a bitter harvest in terms of youth behavioural problems and morals etc. They tampered with something fundamental put in place by God and paid a price for so doing. That is the moral for us living in these days of fanatical feminism, dear friend. Family roles are providential, not accidental and were planned by our Maker for the good of society and we disregard them at our peril.
True, there are enticing rewards for married women who continue to be part of the workforce, no doubt, but that does not mean that it is morally right for them to work, even if they do find it satisfying in the short term. The Devil will always make disobedience to God’s providential order appealing, otherwise his way would not seem better to sinful man - we are not ignorant of his devices, old chap. He is a past master at deception and he will always make the grass appear greener on the other side of the fence.
Married women have a choice either to obey or disobey God’s providential order, but if they are women of faith, they will gladly submit themselves to being “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5), humbly accepting the role of housewife as being best for them and best for the wider society. If they are desirous of pleasing God and doing the right thing for their offspring, they will not feel that they are being “forced into a role”. It is only a woman who revolts against God’s providential order that will feel miserable about having to devote herself exclusively to the divine role of motherhood, dear friend. A truly pious women will not feel that way.
No one is suggesting here that a woman must be a feebly submissive person who does not say boo to a goose and who is afraid to voice an opinion. All this emotive talk of women being ‘doormats’ is, dear friend, designed to further the feminist cause and discredit men. It elicits an emotional response which is neither fair nor conducive to rational thinking. Professing Catholics of all people should desist using it as it furthers the case of the enemies of religion.
We must needs also distinguish between standing up for oneself and being ostentatiously self-assertive, which is in complete contrast to St. Peter’s description of a woman as “a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (I Pet. 3: 1-7). Indeed, the apostle terms this lovely disposition and “imperishable jewel”. Would to God that there were more women of this ilk in our confused and troubled times.
To see married women who stay at home and devote themselves to motherhood as having their freedom restricted is to totally misunderstand a woman’s proper sphere. A pious Catholic woman would simply not look at this way, dear friend, because she would see motherhood as the role assigned to her by the divine providence and not question the wisdom of her Creator. It is as if a man questioned the Creator’s wisdom in assigning him the role of breadwinner and prefered instead to be homemaker. Be under no illusions, rebellion and discontent are at the very heart of the feminist movement, with its blurring of gender roles. In point of fact it is its very driving force, which is why it is so anti-Christian, dear friend.
The man, according to Christian teaching, is the head of the household, but that does not mean that he has to be, to use the modern parlance, a ‘control freak’. As head of the house, he can still be a loving devoted husband who treats his wife with the dignity and consideration that she deserves as the “weaker vessel” (I Pet. 3: 7). Nevertheless, wives are still exhorted to “be submissive” to their husbands (I Pet. 3: 1; cf. Eph. 5: 22-24; Col. 3: 18), as befits those accept the divine pattern as seen in the original design of the Creator.
Within the context of a God-fearing home marked by the love of Christ, where both the husband and the wife are desirous to please the Lord (including a humble acceptance of their God-given roles), spousal abuse would, I suspect, be highly unlikely.
God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
), many of the the people (not all) seeking these other desires (desires of the self - as opposed to desires of the other) often regret it when they see thier counterparts who are perhaps not as beautiful, not as wealthy and not as popular, in loving relationships with thier families, thoer children and god-willing thier grandchildren.