Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

[FaithBuild18]

I would have just thought that, since family is one of their biggest concerns, they’d voice some sort of supportive of 1 working parent per family.

I think it that would also help alleviate the massive disparity between wealthy and poor families. If fewer people were in the job market, there’d be more jobs available. Family A has 2 working parents, while Family B has 0 working parents. What if each family had 1 working parent? Family A wouldn’t be as wealthy, and Family B wouldn’t be as poor. Obviously the children of these families would reap the biggest rewards.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

I would have just thought that, since family is one of their biggest concerns, they’d voice some sort of supportive of 1 working parent per family.

The USCCB is committed to fair employment practices.

I think it that would also help alleviate the massive disparity between wealthy and poor families. If fewer people were in the job market, there’d be more jobs available. Family A has 2 working parents, while Family B has 0 working parents. What if each family had 1 working parent? Family A wouldn’t be as wealthy, and Family B wouldn’t be as poor. Obviously the children of these families would reap the biggest rewards.

Workers aren’t widgets. You can’t unplug one and just stick another one in its place.

If Family B has no working adults in it, then we need to ensure there are enough education and job training opportunities so that there are enough qualified applicant for all of the available jobs in our economy.

There is no reason to discourage one group of people from providing for their own families for this to happen.

Luna

 

[Allegra]

Because a one-working-parent-family is a recent development of the modern world and only exists in the wealthiest nations. In agricultural societies, women worked their farms along with their husbands. In industrial communities, children stayed home with older children, disabled aunties and grandmothers, or went to work along side their mothers in the factory. Non-working mothers are the creation of the upper class and upper middle class. Poor families have always required both parents to work in order to make ends meet. In modern times, we have had economic success to the point where mother was able to stay at home and stir the stew while dad went to the office, but this is not the norm throughout history.

 

[Debora123]

I would have just thought that, since family is one of their biggest concerns, they’d voice some sort of supportive of 1 working parent per family.

I think it that would also help alleviate the massive disparity between wealthy and poor families. If fewer people were in the job market, there’d be more jobs available. Family A has 2 working parents, while Family B has 0 working parents. What if each family had 1 working parent? Family A wouldn’t be as wealthy, and Family B wouldn’t be as poor. Obviously the children of these families would reap the biggest rewards.

Did anyone else get a sense of communism at play here??

 

[Nate13]

Because a one-working-parent-family is a recent development of the modern world and only exists in the wealthiest nations. In agricultural societies, women worked their farms along with their husbands. In industrial communities, children stayed home with older children, disabled aunties and grandmothers, or went to work along side their mothers in the factory. Non-working mothers are the creation of the upper class and upper middle class. Poor families have always required both parents to work in order to make ends meet. In modern times, we have had economic success to the point where mother was able to stay at home and stir the stew while dad went to the office, but this is not the norm throughout history.

Exactly. The norm in society has been that women work, all be it usually not far from home in the past.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Did anyone else get a sense of communism at play here??

Yup. Communism: it’s the new norm.

 

[sedonaman]

Did anyone else get a sense of communism at play here??

Sorta. This was the attitude at the end of WW-II which required a lot of women to work in traditional male jobs. When the war was over, women were encouraged to return to their homes so the military men coming back could find employment.

Our economy is a lot more complex today. The idea that there are only so many jobs no longer applies, except perhaps in assembly line situations. In many cases, the worker makes his own job. An interesting story is of a self-made young woman who owned a small executive airline service. She had a fear of flying but didn’t like things that limited her life, so she took flying lessons. Eventually, she started her own company. She made her own job.

This can true even if he works for an employer. I once had such a job. It became what I made of it, as did a lot of others. Those who didn’t catch on to this became bored. I am reminded of the story of the black man who sold insurance door-to-door during the Depression. He noticed that his CEO made $50,000 while the CEO of Palmolive Corp. made $5 million per year. He said, “I stopped selling insurance and started selling soap.” He went to a soap manufacturer and asked for an order of soap on account. The manager refused. He swore that he would someday buy that company and fire that manager. It took ten years, but he did buy the company, but the manager had since moved on.

My eldest son worked for a pizza parlor. When business was slow, he could have just kicked back and relaxed. Instead, he taped coupons to empty pizza boxes so that customers would have a coupon for their next pizza. A lot of those coupons came back with future purchases.

So there you have it. Success depends a lot on the creativity of the worker.

 

[1ke]

I would have just thought that, since family is one of their biggest concerns, they’d voice some sort of supportive of 1 working parent per family.

I think it that would also help alleviate the massive disparity between wealthy and poor families. If fewer people were in the job market, there’d be more jobs available. Family A has 2 working parents, while Family B has 0 working parents. What if each family had 1 working parent? Family A wouldn’t be as wealthy, and Family B wouldn’t be as poor. Obviously the children of these families would reap the biggest rewards.

Can you please explain from which document of the USCCB you are taking this idea? Please substantiate the position that the USCCB is “so big” on women working. Is it your premise that this is not in keeping with Church teaching? If so, you need to prove it. The Church has no teaching against women working nor does it have a teaching against them NOT working.

 

[Daralharb]

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)

" … the amount of farms in the South was significantly less than the North, though the acreage per farm was more in the southern states.(1) With the typical emphasis being on northern manufacturing and southern farming, this indeed was a surprise as was the amount of women in manufacturing in the South. This was surprising because I had not even considered the emerging middle class due to so much focus on the planter elite and the southern agrarian subsistence farmer. Without a farm to work, or fellow socialites to maintain, the female of the middle class was certainly more free to work in the southern factories though the census data does not specify such details and it is merely conjecture on my part, further resources indicate this was a stepping stone class to the goal of joining the South’s aristocracy.(6) … "

6- “A Visit to Antebellum South Carolina”. Title Unknown. Chap 14, pg 1. 2010. Instructional Television. South Carolina Department of Education. Web. 2010. PDF.
[www.itv.scetv.org/schistory/chapter14.pdf]](www.itv.scetv.org/schistory/chapter14.pdf])

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.

 

[JimG]

I wasn’t aware that the USCCB was a particular advocate of women working. I doubt that they have anything against stay at home moms. They work too.

 

[St_Francis]

I would have just thought that, since family is one of their biggest concerns, they’d voice some sort of supportive of 1 working parent per family.

I think it that would also help alleviate the massive disparity between wealthy and poor families. If fewer people were in the job market, there’d be more jobs available. Family A has 2 working parents, while Family B has 0 working parents. What if each family had 1 working parent? Family A wouldn’t be as wealthy, and Family B wouldn’t be as poor. Obviously the children of these families would reap the biggest rewards.

Why do you think the USCCB is so big on women working?

 

[Allegra]

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.

.

A woman who works outside the home isn’t a true wife? I would argue that a woman who refuses to works outside the home, would rather take money from relatives, charities that are not designed to help the able-bodied, or would rack up dept against her family’s home, is less of a wife and less of a mother. Do you decide who has the right to procreate? Are the children of teachers, retail workers, and others who don’t make enough to run a household less worthy of life? Or are their parents just less worthy of being parents? Both my parents worked my whole childhood and guess what, my brothers and sisters and I turned out to be capable, moral human beings. We learned a to have a decent work ethic and to do our part around the house instead of treating our mother like some sort of perpetual slave. We have a strong family relationship and we went into our adult lives knowing how to take care of ourselves, and others as well if needed. As for your imaginary golden days where no one got married until they had four bedroom house and a years worth of bills in the bank, they’re nonsense. Such a world never existed. Young couples have always struggled. Women have always had to find other sources of income to make ends meet. People have always gone through unstable periods in their families. There have always been men who didn’t make quite enough money at a job to sustain the family and they’ve always sired children into this world. Please keep in mind all the brave, strong woman who have worked their butts off to support and nurture their families when you go about bragging of the superiority of the lives of the privileged.

 

[Debora123]

A woman who works outside the home isn’t a true wife? I would argue that a woman who refuses to works outside the home, would rather take money from relatives, charities that are not designed to help the able-bodied, or would rack up dept against her family’s home, is less of a wife and less of a mother. Do you decide who has the right to procreate? Are the children of teachers, retail workers, and others who don’t make enough to run a household less worthy of life? Or are their parents just less worthy of being parents? Both my parents worked my whole childhood and guess what, my brothers and sisters and I turned out to be capable, moral human beings. We learned a to have a decent work ethic and to do our part around the house instead of treating our mother like some sort of perpetual slave. We have a strong family relationship and we went into our adult lives knowing how to take care of ourselves, and others as well if needed. As for your imaginary golden days where no one got married until they had four bedroom house and a years worth of bills in the bank, they’re nonsense. Such a world never existed. Young couples have always struggled. Women have always had to find other sources of income to make ends meet. People have always gone through unstable periods in their families. There have always been men who didn’t make quite enough money at a job to sustain the family and they’ve always sired children into this world. Please keep in mind all the brave, strong woman who have worked their butts off to support and nurture their families when you go about bragging of the superiority of the lives of the privileged.

Well said!

 

[Debora123]

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.

:nope:

 

[Daralharb]

A woman who works outside the home isn’t a true wife? I would argue that a woman who refuses to works outside the home, would rather take money from relatives, charities that are not designed to help the able-bodied, or would rack up dept against her family’s home, is less of a wife and less of a mother. Do you decide who has the right to procreate? Are the children of teachers, retail workers, and others who don’t make enough to run a household less worthy of life? Or are their parents just less worthy of being parents? Both my parents worked my whole childhood and guess what, my brothers and sisters and I turned out to be capable, moral human beings. We learned a to have a decent work ethic and to do our part around the house instead of treating our mother like some sort of perpetual slave. We have a strong family relationship and we went into our adult lives knowing how to take care of ourselves, and others as well if needed. As for your imaginary golden days where no one got married until they had four bedroom house and a years worth of bills in the bank, they’re nonsense. Such a world never existed. Young couples have always struggled. Women have always had to find other sources of income to make ends meet. People have always gone through unstable periods in their families. There have always been men who didn’t make quite enough money at a job to sustain the family and they’ve always sired children into this world. Please keep in mind all the brave, strong woman who have worked their butts off to support and nurture their families when you go about bragging of the superiority of the lives of the privileged.

Wow, assume much and then file the assumptions as stated fact. Regrettable style of discourse.

Ya built the argument on sandy land, so, be prepared for its collapse:

#1- you’re confusing historical gender roles with current(modern) reality. A woman taking in laundry, doing sewing, etc did so IN THE HOME. That’s the key issue. In. The. Home.

#2- Yes, a woman chasing some career instead of providing a comfortable and structured home for her children is neglecting her duty. Even worse is her husband is being complacent in his children being latchkey kids, or at the mercy of some daycare worker when they could have mom.

#3- Any couple who gets married without studying the impact of finances when kids come into the picture is outright immature and selfish. “oops! didn’t plan that one! quick, honey, get a job! we’s gon be broke!”. Less people should be married as long as this materialistic culture pervades.

#4- perpetual slave? Then what is dad? an indentured servant? Don’t be obtuse. Both fill necessary roles. Not making money is potentially saving money and even more apparent- the environment of the kids’ upbringing is saved. I could care less if mom works during the day when kids are at school. Fine, more power to her. But the reality is most people make more stress for themselves by adding on hours, juggling who takes who where and to what practice, sitter, etc. Dual-income families create so much stress for themselves by chasing materialism’s fruits more often than not.

#5- Of course young couples “struggled”, all couples do. The historical trend is to not marry until established in a career or at least done with university. This offsets the “we love each other and have no idea what real life is!” phenomena we see. Young men also used to live in bachelor quarters or at home until this was accomplished. Now these same young men chase things, large apartments, houses they can barely pay for, etc and then they discover married life is made harder by their failure to plan. And why should they when future-wifey of the Dumb Residence can help augment the income? Can you imagine if people actually thought in a financially sensible manner instead of selfishly? Just imagine. Put on Dave Ramsey in the background, imagine your grandfather’s voice in lieu of Dave, and just imagine… Dave Ramsey, financial guru, gives advice he heard from my grandma. Seriously. Nothing that man says is new. It’s called pre-1960’s smarts.

#6- Golden days? Nah. Life has pretty much sucked since Eve said, “well, if the snake says it so…” and Adam didn’t correct her. What you mean is the days of the pre-me/me/me days when people did things in a sensible and financially sound manner- don’t buy a bunch of stuff on credit, don’t live outside your means, etc.

#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can’t afford daycare generally. If they do, it’s through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/chartbook/income-inequality-households-children/children-by-income). I’m sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don’t have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument…

 

[Allegra]

Wow, assume much and then file the assumptions as stated fact. Regrettable style of discourse.

Ya built the argument on sandy land, so, be prepared for its collapse:

#1- you’re confusing historical gender roles with current(modern) reality. A woman taking in laundry, doing sewing, etc did so IN THE HOME. That’s the key issue. In. The. Home.

#2- Yes, a woman chasing some career instead of providing a comfortable and structured home for her children is neglecting her duty. Even worse is her husband is being complacent in his children being latchkey kids, or at the mercy of some daycare worker when they could have mom.

#3- Any couple who gets married without studying the impact of finances when kids come into the picture is outright immature and selfish. “oops! didn’t plan that one! quick, honey, get a job! we’s gon be broke!”. Less people should be married as long as this materialistic culture pervades.

#4- perpetual slave? Then what is dad? an indentured servant? Don’t be obtuse. Both fill necessary roles. Not making money is potentially saving money and even more apparent- the environment of the kids’ upbringing is saved. I could care less if mom works during the day when kids are at school. Fine, more power to her. But the reality is most people make more stress for themselves by adding on hours, juggling who takes who where and to what practice, sitter, etc. Dual-income families create so much stress for themselves by chasing materialism’s fruits more often than not.

#5- Of course young couples “struggled”, all couples do. The historical trend is to not marry until established in a career or at least done with university. This offsets the “we love each other and have no idea what real life is!” phenomena we see. Young men also used to live in bachelor quarters or at home until this was accomplished. Now these same young men chase things, large apartments, houses they can barely pay for, etc and then they discover married life is made harder by their failure to plan. And why should they when future-wifey of the Dumb Residence can help augment the income? Can you imagine if people actually thought in a financially sensible manner instead of selfishly? Just imagine. Put on Dave Ramsey in the background, imagine your grandfather’s voice in lieu of Dave, and just imagine… Dave Ramsey, financial guru, gives advice he heard from my grandma. Seriously. Nothing that man says is new. It’s called pre-1960’s smarts.

#6- Golden days? Nah. Life has pretty much sucked since Eve said, “well, if the snake says it so…” and Adam didn’t correct her. What you mean is the days of the pre-me/me/me days when people did things in a sensible and financially sound manner- don’t buy a bunch of stuff on credit, don’t live outside your means, etc.

#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can’t afford daycare generally. If they do, it’s through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/chartbook/income-inequality-households-children/children-by-income). I’m sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don’t have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument…

 

[Allegra]

#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can’t afford daycare generally. If they do, it’s through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/chartbook/income-inequality-households-children/children-by-income). I’m sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don’t have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument…

Complete nonsense. I’m not confusing anything. I’m not talking about woman doing some other families laundry along with her own family’s. I’m talking about women who taught, worked in factories, cleaned houses, worked in shops, served food. Trying to suggest that these women didn’t exist is complete foolishness and trying to suggest that they were bad mothers and wives is nothing but your waving a banner of pride at how morally superior you are because your family can afford not to have two parents who work.

Secondly, if you think that a family’s relationship of environment is based on the amount of time spent together you’re off your rocker! Being at home to tend do every little detail of your child’s life doesn’t make you a better mother. Letting yourself be made into a daymaid instead of teaching your child to take care of their own needs as well as their share of the housework is not doing them any favors. Because my mother had to work, we all learned the skills needed to take care of the house and the family. We all left home knowing how to use the laundry, paint the trim, operate a bandsaw and electric screwdriver, thread the bobbin on a sewing machine, etc. By the way, you seem to think that a family’s quality of life is entirely contingent on the mother being with the kids. I’d rather see both mom and dad work all week and be together on the evenings and weekends than mom at home with the kids while dad works incessantly or even goes on long business trips and hardly ever sees his kids. Children need their fathers as well, especially boys, and families need to have all-together time, not just mom and kids.

In regards to your opinion that those mothers that work are somehow neglecting their duties, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve nearly run over the neighborhood kids who have a tendency to play games, sitting on the curb of the street while their alleged stay-at-home moms sit around and get tanked on the deck of the neighborhood pool. Meanwhile, my mother was at every classroom party, game, and concert we had. She made us costumes for Halloween and dresses for our proms. My grandmother worked in a shoe factory so that her children could attend Catholic school, but she took the time to teach them all to play the piano. My other grandmother came home from selling real estate, cooked a meal for her husband and four children and then sat down the rest of the evening to teach her three deaf children how to read, write, and speak. She had to work because they had to sell their family farm and move to a city that had a school for the deaf and her husband couldn’t always make enough money to pay for their house and the tuition. What a disgraceful, selfish woman! My mother’s grandmother never worked, until her husband died. She then had to run tables because she had nothing more than an eighth grade education.

I’m amazed that you have the nerve to write the comment suggesting that only those who meet your high standards of financial security have the right to be married and have children. However, I will agree that it would be better if people planned their finances better and lived within their means. (And that includes women who have the capacity to get a job but would rather take money from their parents, their neighbors, charity, and the taxpayers than do so, all under the guise of “the children come first”. )

I disagree with you firmly that life sucks. Actually, life is pretty good. Especially, when you have a job you don’t hate and a family that is worth working for and that you look forward to spending time with.

I guess you didn’t notice, but I wasn’t comparing the poor with the privileged. I was comparing the average with the privileged. And I’m certainly not angry that the rich have money. Good for them! They probably earned it by a combination of hard work and good fortune. That does not make them morally superior and the fact that they can live comfortaby on their one income is not a virtue but a generous gift that they ought to be thankful for. It certainly does not give them liscence to look down on those who have not achieved the same.

 

[LightBound]

Wow, assume much and then file the assumptions as stated fact. Regrettable style of discourse.

Ya built the argument on sandy land, so, be prepared for its collapse:

#1- you’re confusing historical gender roles with current(modern) reality. A woman taking in laundry, doing sewing, etc did so IN THE HOME. That’s the key issue. In. The. Home.

#2- Yes, a woman chasing some career instead of providing a comfortable and structured home for her children is neglecting her duty. Even worse is her husband is being complacent in his children being latchkey kids, or at the mercy of some daycare worker when they could have mom.

#3- Any couple who gets married without studying the impact of finances when kids come into the picture is outright immature and selfish. “oops! didn’t plan that one! quick, honey, get a job! we’s gon be broke!”. Less people should be married as long as this materialistic culture pervades.

#4- perpetual slave? Then what is dad? an indentured servant? Don’t be obtuse. Both fill necessary roles. Not making money is potentially saving money and even more apparent- the environment of the kids’ upbringing is saved. I could care less if mom works during the day when kids are at school. Fine, more power to her. But the reality is most people make more stress for themselves by adding on hours, juggling who takes who where and to what practice, sitter, etc. Dual-income families create so much stress for themselves by chasing materialism’s fruits more often than not.

#5- Of course young couples “struggled”, all couples do. The historical trend is to not marry until established in a career or at least done with university. This offsets the “we love each other and have no idea what real life is!” phenomena we see. Young men also used to live in bachelor quarters or at home until this was accomplished. Now these same young men chase things, large apartments, houses they can barely pay for, etc and then they discover married life is made harder by their failure to plan. And why should they when future-wifey of the Dumb Residence can help augment the income? Can you imagine if people actually thought in a financially sensible manner instead of selfishly? Just imagine. Put on Dave Ramsey in the background, imagine your grandfather’s voice in lieu of Dave, and just imagine… Dave Ramsey, financial guru, gives advice he heard from my grandma. Seriously. Nothing that man says is new. It’s called pre-1960’s smarts.

#6- Golden days? Nah. Life has pretty much sucked since Eve said, “well, if the snake says it so…” and Adam didn’t correct her. What you mean is the days of the pre-me/me/me days when people did things in a sensible and financially sound manner- don’t buy a bunch of stuff on credit, don’t live outside your means, etc.

#7- privileged? The privileged tend to have LESS children and LESS need for costly daycare. Whereas the poor have more kids, and, can’t afford daycare generally. If they do, it’s through a friend or merely a sitter which only takes the place of the mother for a specified time. (russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/chartbook/income-inequality-households-children/children-by-income). I’m sorry if you are angry that rich people are rich and don’t have to make the same sacrifices as the non-rich. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not more things.

Now, back to your emotional argument…

The Church didn’t have an issue with Saint Gianna Beretta Molla being a working mom. She was a medical doctor married to a prominant business man, so it wasn’t for money that she worked outside the home. Some women do have more than one calling…in St Gianna’s case, it was her husband and children, plus the women and children she saw as patients in her clinic.

 

[Daralharb]

Of course women have always worked in various regards, they even claim one of the oldest professions! Are you suggesting I’m positing that some spinsters parents take care of her? No, she should get a job. I’m solely discussing married with children and chasing careers, not some part-time job when the school-age children are off to school. Nor am I discussing what women have done during extraordinary times. The point is, stay at home mothers have the ability to work, and with the internet, certain jobs are easy to get as a telecommuter: a total win-win!

The women’s liberation/feminism movement, inspired by a totally out of context understanding of the Rosie the Riveter Icon and all associated workers therein, is what started, along with the hippie movement (which goes back to the underground movements of the earlier generations), the downfall of the American society. Fact.

I’m not suggesting the Church or even society should have a problem with women working, I am merely expressing the reality that family life was a lot better off overall before this influx of women into the workforce in positions men have always traditionally held. I mean seriously. All it does is create more competition for jobs where none need be. When the need for jobs creates industry, it’s often somehow tax-funded and doomed to failure. When industry creates jobs, they will be filled.

Any parent that is going to let their impressionable youngster be exposed to adults and their insane ideas about life, religion, etc as authority figures- assuming they don’t use a known Catholic party for this- is an outright idiot in this day and age. Especially for kids who wouldn’t normally be in school during the day due to their young age. I’m not even happy about the government forcing public school on people via taxation without the ability to use a school voucher or get a return for homeschooling outside of standardized test-administration cost.

As per St. Gianna, she had a ministry calling obviously. Should I lobby for Catholic women who are healthcare professionals to suck the pus out of wounds of patients because St. Catherine of Siena did it? Come on. I’m talking in general here and you have one example of a Saint who had a completely different station in life than most.

Why, I wonder, do women feel this crazy need to have a job, any job, when it leads to nothing but more stress or cost to offset the stress?

I’m talking good of society and family, feelings aren’t even in the top 3. And all I’m reading is feelings and examples flailing to grasp a root.

Excellent, you were self-taught(?*) on life skills. *That’s a parent’s job. My mom, the stay at home one, took me in the laundry room and said, “here’s how you wash your own clothes, don’t break my washer”, and went to doing other things with her newly open minutes. Dad, similarly, said, “this is how you do X, don’t break my tools”, and expected me to be self-sufficient by following instructions.

Per the stay-at-home concubines (they certainly aren’t acting like mothers!), that’s obviously bad parenting. I’m not espousing bad parenting, so, what does this have to do with anything pertinent other than the failings of a woman to do her parental duties? Same type of person is the reason affirmative-action hired Federal employees are such a poor example of workers- almost impossible to get fired. The stay-at-home mom knows she can’t get fired per se, so, it is easier to become lazy. Friends are easier to hang out with than children who must submit to parental authority, so they make friends of their children and then wonder why they have smart mouths and/or are outright disrespectful.

Per the OP title, I’d say this: the USCCB isn’t big or little on women working. I doubt they have an opinion in the extreme of either way. However, the USCCB cannot, in its PC-right mind, come out and say women shouldn’t work in general/at all (nor am I saying this), as the actual (complex) social/moral teaching on such an issue would become so convoluted in controversy that pretty soon, sensational headlines such as “Perpetual Slaves!? USCCB Hates Women!” would appear. If 100, or even 50 years ago, you heard someone say a mother should be at home, the response would likely result in a comment analogous to the obvious lack of fecal matter in the direction of Sherlock. Now? The culture has changed, and with it, the family.

I will say this: Dad’s shed didn’t get burned down when mom was at home.

 

[LisaA]

Of course women have always worked in various regards, they even claim one of the oldest professions! Are you suggesting I’m positing that some spinsters parents take care of her? No, she should get a job. I’m solely discussing married with children and chasing careers, not some part-time job when the school-age children are off to school. Nor am I discussing what women have done during extraordinary times. The point is, stay at home mothers have the ability to work, and with the internet, certain jobs are easy to get as a telecommuter: a total win-win!

The women’s liberation/feminism movement, inspired by a totally out of context understanding of the Rosie the Riveter Icon and all associated workers therein, is what started, along with the hippie movement (which goes back to the underground movements of the earlier generations), the downfall of the American society. Fact.

I’m not suggesting the Church or even society should have a problem with women working, I am merely expressing the reality that family life was a lot better off overall before this influx of women into the workforce in positions men have always traditionally held. I mean seriously. All it does is create more competition for jobs where none need be. When the need for jobs creates industry, it’s often somehow tax-funded and doomed to failure. When industry creates jobs, they will be filled.

I will say this: Dad’s shed didn’t get burned down when mom was at home.

Perhaps don’t agree with the statement that women shouldn’t be in jobs held traditionally by men (other than those requiring physical ability that few women possess) but I do agree that the change in traditional roles has been a huge disaster for children and families. Women have forged their way into the working world outside the home, taking on that breadwinner (traditionally male) role. and sadly some men particularly in certain communities have thus abdicated their role as provider and protector leaving our country with a massive percentage of single mothers without a male in the home to both provide for and protect his family. There are two words that describe the cause of poverty in this country “single mothers” and no that doesn’t mean they are bad people but the reality is that children raised in intact families with a mother and father married to each other are far less likely to be living off the rest of the taxpayers, dealing with drugs, teen pregnancies, and other unproductive behavior.

As a female who lived through “Women’s Lib” as they called it, I can assure you this movement bore evil fruits even if the intentions were noble. Males and females have different natures and when you force either into an unnatural way of life, it does not bring out the best in either sex. We are now plagued with a bastion of irresponsible sperm donors, women who do not have the financial or emotional reserves to provide a good environment for raising children and the poor children who are dragged through the parents’ chaotic lives. And before the onslaught of “well my mom was single and she was a saint” begins, I am talking about the average situation, not the exception. The statistics are clear. “Breadwinner mom” and no father is a recipe for poverty. Women being expected to work, and they are these days, has completely changed the way children grow up in this country. Free love, free sex, do what feels good have created some of the evil fruits previously described. Women being “liberated” from the ‘chains’ of taking care of their families to go out and earn money has only made them over worked, over tired and overwhelmed.

Lisa