Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

[Daralharb]

I don’t think women working has contributed to the “decline” of the family. My mother was a stay at home mom, but my husband’s mother was a full time doctor, and my husband is the most pure hearted, respectful, well grounded individual I’ve ever met. I’m only half the person he is.

I think premarital sex is the family’s worst enemy, but there are a lot of other things at play as well.

Anecdotal: history insinuates otherwise. Care to address the argument with some sources to back up the anecdotes?

If not, thanks for your opinion on… anecdotal personal family history.

I’m glad it worked out.

 

[LucyLight]

You can’t separate women’s lib and the sexual revolution in the manner which you try. You are right in that men and women are equal in value, but to suggest that they’re equal in everything else is ignorant to history, science, and scripture, which clearly assigns separate distinct roles to fathers and mothers.

Your view of feminism, and anyone who shares this view, contradicts the light of history and scripture. Suffrage on the other hand, is a great thing - because men and women are equal in value (dignitity) and thus women should never be denied a legal right that men have. But feminism from the get go has sewn the seeds that we see today. Women aren’t entitled to contraceptives because of the sexual revolution glorifying sex, rather they are entitled to contraceptives because it is empowering for women. Feminism argues that women have a fundamental right to chose their own health over the health of their child. The sexual revolution does not care to make such an argument. This is purely a result of feminism exploding before our very eyes.

The modern perception of feminism, yours included, is entirely fallacious. Feminism, from a purely semantic point of view, is embracing feminine qualities. These qualities have dignified women for the past several thousand years up until the last hundred, and should absolutely be celebrated and cherished. Women are great because they are unique. And men are great because they are unique. Modern day feminism on the other hand, does exactly what you suggest, and tries to equate women with men. It is not feminism, rather it is masculinity applied to women. If anything it is anti-feminism. Since the middle of the 20th century women have been becoming less like women and more like men, in everything from clothing to occupation.

I believe that women are eqaul in value to men and deserve equal legal rights. I never said that we are the same. We are quite different and I think thats a good thing. I’m pretty feminine and I like my men masculine (no androgyny over here:thumbsup Don’t tell me what my perception of feminism is. I gave you the definintion which is that women are equal to men. Of course this means equal in value, which I have said several times now. The promoters of the sexual revoloution have used the womens rights movement to promote their cause. Allegra said it best when she likened this to proaborts using “women’s health” to promote abortion. Of course we aren’t against women’s health. Why would anyone be against feminism?

 

[dixieagle]

If women and men are equal, I’m the Duke of Earl. We are complimentary, not “equal”. We are only fulfilled IN each other through complimentary aspects, not equal aspects. Eve was created because Adam needed a mate. She wasn’t created so Eve would have a scrapbooking partner, nor so Adam would have a friend to burp and drink beer with. They were to become one flesh. ONLY in this relationship can men and women be equal by fulfilling and being fulfilled in that which they lack, and together can create that which they are. A woman without a husband has to take on male attributes if she is a mother. A man without a wife has to learn femininity in certain regards, if he is a father.

While it would be nice if men and women were always “complimentary” to each other, it is not always the case.

“Complementary” is another matter entirely.

 

[Debora123]

Anecdotal: history insinuates otherwise. Care to address the argument with some sources to back up the anecdotes?

If not, thanks for your opinion on… anecdotal personal family history.

I’m glad it worked out.

I’m sure there are sources out there that will say career moms are the cause of the family’s decline, as I am sure there are sources out there that will say being a career mom is a good thing.

I’ve seen both here on CAF. I really think it depends on the family and depends on the woman. Some women simply are not happy and not productive as stay at home moms and do much better and become much better people and much better mothers when they have a career outside the home. This isn’t a one size fits all issue, and the Church, in her wisdom, recognizes this.

You can have your opinions about working moms, and I will have mine. The important thing is that we keep in mind the Church is not against moms having careers outside the home, and so we must discuss the subject accordingly and make sure we don’t condemn this group of women in any way, shape, or form.

If I may ask, are you married? Just curious.

 

[Daralharb]

While it would be nice if men and women were always “complimentary” to each other, it is not always the case.

“Complementary” is another matter entirely.

complementary… got it.

Thank you for the correction.

So, through recognition of complementary aspects, we can get to a place of complimentary interaction.
Until this happens, I suppose the bandage will continue to be wound around the wound. I just hope the society paramedics know to park in the driveway. Oh, English, I hate your vulgarity and lack of vowel distinction in colloquial realms.

 

[manualman]

I don’t think your charactorization of the situation of most working mothers is fair at all. First of all, almost no one leaves their children with a stranger. Most people go to great efforts to make certain that their children are getting good care. Many parents of very small children have family members or close friends who watch their children.

Sorry, but this is not generally the case, protestations aside. My wife worked almost full time for almost two years in two different Kindercare facility (that generally got good external reviews). That experience was precisely WHY she told me before we ever got married that her kids would NEVER have that experience, even if we had to live in a trailer park. It was that bad.

I don’t have a problem with women working. I certainly see women as equal in value and potential as men. I just don’t see women as being the same as men (with irrelevent plumbing differences). That’s what feminism is and what is wrong with it.

Feminism came SO close to being a major step forwards. But because it missed a crucial factor, it was an utter failure. Feminism correctly identified the way in which men failed to value the contributions women made and had developed an economic system that gave the power and glory to men while denigrating the contributions of women. That part was spot on. Where they fatally erred was to JOIN the mysoginist men and regard full time moms as nothing more than “stew-stirrers” and declare that the way to ‘freedom’ was to be just like men. Instead of recognizing the women have traditionally done the REAL work of civilization (teaching, acts of mercy, community involvement, volunteerism) while men did the menial, shallow surface veneers tasks (building roads/buildings, lawyering, doctoring and growing food). Men have traditionally done the things necessarily for physical survival while women have traditionally passed on the culture and values of civilization.

I fully recognize that some moms really want a career and professional challenges. That’s fine, especially if the father is willing to commit to full time family life or a profession that allows him to be home after school and provide care to his own kids. What I object to is the very real culture of feminism that not only fails to properly appreciate the supreme role women have traditionally held in sustenance of culture, but denigrates it as badly as any 1950’s sitcom dad. I also recognize that some families financially can’t avoid two full time incomes. But for those who honestly have options and convince themselves that they can have a rich family life on 2.5 hours per weekday of contact with their kids (most of that task oriented), I have nothing but pity. You’re robbing yourself and your kids for results that will mean nothing to you in the long term.

 

[Nate13]

Feminism came SO close to being a major step forwards. But because it missed a crucial factor, it was an utter failure. Feminism correctly identified the way in which men failed to value the contributions women made and had developed an economic system that gave the power and glory to men while denigrating the contributions of women. That part was spot on. Where they fatally erred was to JOIN the mysoginist men and regard full time moms as nothing more than “stew-stirrers” and declare that the way to ‘freedom’ was to be just like men. Instead of recognizing the women have traditionally done the REAL work of civilization (teaching, acts of mercy, community involvement, volunteerism) while men did the menial, shallow surface veneers tasks (building roads/buildings, lawyering, doctoring and growing food). Men have traditionally done the things necessarily for physical survival while women have traditionally passed on the culture and values of civilization.

Spot on.

 

[LucyLight]

Sorry, but this is not generally the case, protestations aside. My wife worked almost full time for almost two years in two different Kindercare facility (that generally got good external reviews). That experience was precisely WHY she told me before we ever got married that her kids would NEVER have that experience, even if we had to live in a trailer park. It was that bad.

I don’t have a problem with women working. I certainly see women as equal in value and potential as men. I just don’t see women as being the same as men (with irrelevent plumbing differences). That’s what feminism is and what is wrong with it.

Feminism came SO close to being a major step forwards. But because it missed a crucial factor, it was an utter failure. Feminism correctly identified the way in which men failed to value the contributions women made and had developed an economic system that gave the power and glory to men while denigrating the contributions of women. That part was spot on. Where they fatally erred was to JOIN the mysoginist men and regard full time moms as nothing more than “stew-stirrers” and declare that the way to ‘freedom’ was to be just like men. Instead of recognizing the women have traditionally done the REAL work of civilization (teaching, acts of mercy, community involvement, volunteerism) while men did the menial, shallow surface veneers tasks (building roads/buildings, lawyering, doctoring and growing food). Men have traditionally done the things necessarily for physical survival while women have traditionally passed on the culture and values of civilization.

I fully recognize that some moms really want a career and professional challenges. That’s fine, especially if the father is willing to commit to full time family life or a profession that allows him to be home after school and provide care to his own kids. What I object to is the very real culture of feminism that not only fails to properly appreciate the supreme role women have traditionally held in sustenance of culture, but denigrates it as badly as any 1950’s sitcom dad. I also recognize that some families financially can’t avoid two full time incomes. But for those who honestly have options and convince themselves that they can have a rich family life on 2.5 hours per weekday of contact with their kids (most of that task oriented), I have nothing but pity. You’re robbing yourself and your kids for results that will mean nothing to you in the long term.

 

[LucyLight]

Sorry, but this is not generally the case, protestations aside. My wife worked almost full time for almost two years in two different Kindercare facility (that generally got good external reviews). That experience was precisely WHY she told me before we ever got married that her kids would NEVER have that experience, even if we had to live in a trailer park. It was that bad.

I don’t have a problem with women working. I certainly see women as equal in value and potential as men. I just don’t see women as being the same as men (with irrelevent plumbing differences). That’s what feminism is and what is wrong with it.

Feminism came SO close to being a major step forwards. But because it missed a crucial factor, it was an utter failure. Feminism correctly identified the way in which men failed to value the contributions women made and had developed an economic system that gave the power and glory to men while denigrating the contributions of women. That part was spot on. Where they fatally erred was to JOIN the mysoginist men and regard full time moms as nothing more than “stew-stirrers” and declare that the way to ‘freedom’ was to be just like men. Instead of recognizing the women have traditionally done the REAL work of civilization (teaching, acts of mercy, community involvement, volunteerism) while men did the menial, shallow surface veneers tasks (building roads/buildings, lawyering, doctoring and growing food). Men have traditionally done the things necessarily for physical survival while women have traditionally passed on the culture and values of civilization.

I fully recognize that some moms really want a career and professional challenges. That’s fine, especially if the father is willing to commit to full time family life or a profession that allows him to be home after school and provide care to his own kids. What I object to is the very real culture of feminism that not only fails to properly appreciate the supreme role women have traditionally held in sustenance of culture, but denigrates it as badly as any 1950’s sitcom dad. I also recognize that some families financially can’t avoid two full time incomes. But for those who honestly have options and convince themselves that they can have a rich family life on 2.5 hours per weekday of contact with their kids (most of that task oriented), I have nothing but pity. You’re robbing yourself and your kids for results that will mean nothing to you in the long term.

Feminism is merely the radical idea that women are equal to men in value and deserve equal rights. There is nothing wrong with feminism!!!:banghead:. This might just be an issue of symantics, but sometimes words matter. I wouldn’t be so quick to say that you are against feminism. In fact, you sound like a feminist, so give yourself credit for that. Secular America has labeled themselves as feminists and we are too quick to hand it over to them. Of course, they denegrate what is inherently good about women like motherhood. This is not feminism, this is mysogyny.

 

[LisaA]

Feminism is merely the radical idea that women are equal to men in value and deserve equal rights. There is nothing wrong with feminism!!!:banghead:. This might just be an issue of symantics, but sometimes words matter. I wouldn’t be so quick to say that you are against feminism. In fact, you sound like a feminist, so give yourself credit for that. Secular America has labeled themselves as feminists and we are too quick to hand it over to them. Of course, they denegrate what is inherently good about women like motherhood. This is not feminism, this is mysogyny.

Consider that you are clinging to YOUR definition of feminism rather than responding to how that word is used in our culture. When I hear the word “Feminist” I do not think of a loving mother who enjoys a great relationship with her husband and affirmation in raising her children to be responsible adults—do you? The image that comes to mind is a Hillary Clinton, a Barbara Boxer,or a Cecile Richards (head of PP). Strident, sharp tongued, determined are the adjectives I hear when the word Feminist is mentioned.

When you hear the word, what image or what person comes to your mind? I’m truly curious because I really don’t see the term as a positive anymore. As Manuelman said in what I believe is a brilliant post, the objective of recognizing the intrinsic value of women and their unique contribution to the betterment of society was hijacked by women who in many ways want to deny their femaleness and become more like men.

I always thought the Left’s VISCIOUS and cruel attacks on Sarah Palin were most telling of their real definition of feminism. Agree or not with Mrs Palin’s political ambitions, IMO she should have been the Poster Child for what the women’s movement was about—a woman who truly had it all, did it all and never lost her femininity even when in waders on a fishing boat. To me Mrs. Palin is someone a young girl can admire as a woman who obviously loves her family, her country, her faith while not denying her intelligence and capability in the public sphere. Mrs Palin should have been admired by “feminists” but because she chose not to abort her youngest child, because she has five kids…oh the horrors, seems to have a great relationship with her husband, she was hated by the very group that should have put her on a pedestal.

The Left hijacked what could have been a very positive force in our society but IMO “feminism” has been a force for destruction.

Lisa

 

[agnes_therese]

Consider that you are clinging to YOUR definition of feminism rather than responding to how that word is used in our culture. When I hear the word “Feminist” I do not think of a loving mother who enjoys a great relationship with her husband and affirmation in raising her children to be responsible adults—do you? The image that comes to mind is a Hillary Clinton, a Barbara Boxer,or a Cecile Richards (head of PP). Strident, sharp tongued, determined are the adjectives I hear when the word Feminist is mentioned.

Lisa

Just because someone has tried to hijack a term doesn’t mean we all have to follow suit like little duckies.
“Determined” is a bad thing? Tell that to St. Teresa of Jesus. And “strident” and “sharp-tongued” are often in the eye (or ear) of the beholder – these terms were often used as insults in the early days of the equal rights movement.

 

[LucyLight]

I consider Gov. Palin to be a feminist and a blow to the liberal left’s occupation of the term.

 

[LucyLight]

Consider that you are clinging to YOUR definition of feminism rather than responding to how that word is used in our culture. When I hear the word “Feminist” I do not think of a loving mother who enjoys a great relationship with her husband and affirmation in raising her children to be responsible adults—do you? The image that comes to mind is a Hillary Clinton, a Barbara Boxer,or a Cecile Richards (head of PP). Strident, sharp tongued, determined are the adjectives I hear when the word Feminist is mentioned.

Lisa

Strident, sharped tongued and determined are good things when you are fighting for what is right. Consider a woman who is fighting for the rights of the unborn. Wouldn’t you want her to be strident, sharp tongued and determined?

 

[LisaA]

Strident, sharped tongued and determined are good things when you are fighting for what is right. Consider a woman who is fighting for the rights of the unborn. Wouldn’t you want her to be strident, sharp tongued and determined?

Determined yes but neither strident or sharp tongued. Do tell me would you rather listen to Margaret Thatcher or Hillary Clinton speak? Who is the more effective communicator? The latter is IMO like nails on a chalkboard. I want to cover my ears whenever she opens her mouth. Women particularly have difficulty when they raise their voices. They sound shrewish and shrill and I think most people of both sexes are turned off. There was another thread about “The View” (IMO one of the most offensive programs on TV) all but one of the women on that show are of the mor strident feminist genre. I would much rather be like Elisabeth Hasselbak than Joy Behar. What about you?

There is NOTHING about being feminine that signifies weakness. I don’t think anyone sees the Blessed Mother as a weak woman, or some of the martyrs mentioned previously. But there is a difference between strong and being grating. To me the word “Feminist” evokes a very unappealing image. I realize that many think words can mean whatever we want them to mean. Gay used to mean happy. Good luck with that meaning now. That word, like feminism, has been hijacked and I don’t think the captive has or will escape its fate.

Lisa

 

[LucyLight]

Determined yes but neither strident or sharp tongued. Do tell me would you rather listen to Margaret Thatcher or Hillary Clinton speak? Who is the more effective communicator? The latter is IMO like nails on a chalkboard. I want to cover my ears whenever she opens her mouth. Women particularly have difficulty when they raise their voices. They sound shrewish and shrill and I think most people of both sexes are turned off. There was another thread about “The View” (IMO one of the most offensive programs on TV) all but one of the women on that show are of the mor strident feminist genre. I would much rather be like Elisabeth Hasselbak than Joy Behar. What about you?

There is NOTHING about being feminine that signifies weakness. I don’t think anyone sees the Blessed Mother as a weak woman, or some of the martyrs mentioned previously. But there is a difference between strong and being grating. To me the word “Feminist” evokes a very unappealing image. I realize that many think words can mean whatever we want them to mean. Gay used to mean happy. Good luck with that meaning now. That word, like feminism, has been hijacked and I don’t think the captive has or will escape its fate.

Lisa

Okay so I’ll lower my voice so I can sound more manly . Are you implying that Margaret Thatcher wasn’t strident or sharp tongued? Btw, Elizabeth Hasselbeck has a pretty high squeeky voice. Not that I think any of this matters…For the record, I’m a Catholic,prolife, stay-at-home, feminist mom.

 

[manualman]

Lucy I see your point, but it has practical problems in the real world. Technically, I’m “pro-choice” because I DO believe women have the inherent right to make their own decisions on how to live and what to do with their bodies - right up until and NOT across the line in which those choices violate someone else’s more fundamental rights.

But as a practical matter, I cannot describe myself as “pro-choice” in public because the term has been co-opted into a euphenism for “pro-abortion.” I fear the same thing applies to the word “feminist.” You are right about the proper definition! Technically Gloria Steinem and Betty Freiden shouldn’t be described as “feminists.” It would be more accurate to call them “masculinists.” But that ship has sailed and I’m afraid it is tilting at windmills to try to reclaim the term.

 

[Allegra]

Sorry, but this is not generally the case, protestations aside. My wife worked almost full time for almost two years in two different Kindercare facility (that generally got good external reviews). That experience was precisely WHY she told me before we ever got married that her kids would NEVER have that experience, even if we had to live in a trailer park. It was that bad.

.

I would never send my children to Kindercare. I think most people would have better luck leaving their kids home along and having a neighbor check on them periodically. However, I stand by the statement that most parents attempt to find something better than Kindercare for their kids. I work in a public school in a completely working-class neighborhood. Nearly all our kids have two parents working, and if not, it’s because someone got laid off. We have over three-hundred students. Do you know how many get on the Kindercare bus? Five. And latchkey gets between twelve and sixteen, depending on the day. All the rest are picked up by or get sent home to parents or responsible family members. The vast majority of parents stive to find something better than institutionalized daycare for their youngsters.

 

[LilHomemaker]

When a family has children, especially those not of school age, daycare becomes so costly that the woman basically works to put the kid(s) in day care to work to put the kids in daycare. Obviously salary plays into this, as does the cost of daycare.

She then has all the stress of dad when they both get home. House still needs to be cleaned, dinner cooked, etc.

Family w/o kids, sure, work away! Earn extra money! Pay off the house quicker! Pay off the car quicker! Go on those vacations which are impossible with kids (pina colada on a tropical pacific beach while junior runs around? Hardly relaxing or romantic).

Mom was a bank manager. Made good money. Decided she didn’t like seeing her kid only a few hours a day. Family life improved much when she quit working. Dad became sole dough winner, and mom became sole bread cooker. I found it hard to get away with things after school when mom, only girl from 5 and the middle child, was there to head me off. (Bo knows baseball, MOM KNOWS us deviant minds known as adolescent boys)

The historical use of women in the workforce goes back to the Industrial Revolution and the ease of domestic life in comparison, the transition from trades to factory work, the movements of the population of men away to work, etc.

In the South, the emergence of a true Middle Class of socio-economic considerations brought about the " new rich" mentality still pervasive in today’s middle class. A richness only had through sound financial planning and investment, or, faux-wealth in debt.

From a paper I wrote for a history class on the census data of 1860 (US)

Being a true wife is a full time job without the addition of extra stress.

If a couple NEEDS that money to even live as a couple, did they not pre-calculate a budget prior to marriage? Did they not factor in a kid or 6?

There was a time when a man didn’t marry until he could provide for a wife and kids on his own. This was a learning process and established the man as a head of the family, as he worked for the family before having the family.

The real communist element isn’t in sound extraction of common sense, it’s in convincing a segment of the population they need to throw off yokes which aren’t yokes, for chains which are locked.

Communists love a working mother. It generates the exact conditions we see now. Feminism is as dangerous as machismo, but that’s not politically correct to really say despite its truth. Once feminism takes hold, society goes eventually. Why do you think feminist ideologies, homosexuality, etc are being pushed so hard right now?

Can’t take over a society which is morally intact.

 

[LucyLight]

Lucy I see your point, but it has practical problems in the real world. Technically, I’m “pro-choice” because I DO believe women have the inherent right to make their own decisions on how to live and what to do with their bodies - right up until and NOT across the line in which those choices violate someone else’s more fundamental rights.

But as a practical matter, I cannot describe myself as “pro-choice” in public because the term has been co-opted into a euphenism for “pro-abortion.” I fear the same thing applies to the word “feminist.” You are right about the proper definition! Technically Gloria Steinem and Betty Freiden shouldn’t be described as “feminists.” It would be more accurate to call them “masculinists.” But that ship has sailed and I’m afraid it is tilting at windmills to try to reclaim the term.

I don’t think that the term feminist is as negative as the term prochoice. However, it certainly is in these forums and it may be your experience. I have heard the term feminist used by both conservative and liberal women to describe themselves. For example the conservative group Concerned Women for America describes itself as a feminist organization but makes the distinction between itself and what it calls “radical feminists”. Even Rush Limbaugh uses the term “feminazis” but doesn’t say feminists.

As Catholics we are called to evangelize and when you start blaming problems on feminists it turns a lot of women off. You don’t want to sound like you are aqainst women having equal rights or that that movement wasn’t neccessary. I think that making a distinction by using the term radical feminists, or liberal feminists is more accurate and effective.

 

[Debora123]

As Catholics we are called to evangelize and when you start blaming problems on feminists it turns a lot of women off. You don’t want to sound like you are aqainst women having equal rights or that that movement wasn’t neccessary. I think that making a distinction by using the term radical feminists, or liberal feminists is more accurate and effective.

Yes!!