Lisa, I’d hire you to do Public Relations work for me, but, well, you know…
Well-said. I would put in my two cents’ worth:
I agree. I highly doubt the majority of 40% of all women who having babies outside of marriage and the 70% of black women in particular having babies outside of marriage feel “liberated”.
Good point. I think there were some sincerely well intentioned people who saw this as giving the same kind of freedom to women that the Civil Rights movement provided to blacks. Women got freedom all right…freedom to kill their babies, freedom to be exposed to STDs, to be used by irresponsible men who were never held to a higher standard and the freedom to be tossed aside like a used tissue. The children are the casualties of this war. We should ask better of both sexes but it’s not politically correct is it?
Hmmm…sounds a little socialist there in the second paragraph. But anyway, to answer your question…
There is NO reason to be rude about this, now is there? You are rather new to CAF and being arrogant and condescending to others just because they hold a different view or post something you happen to disagree with is against forum rules. Please don’t be so sarcastic with others just because they don’t agree with what you’ve posted.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.
Feel free to counter the argument. Rude? I see no rudeness in asserting my position with conviction in light of emotional argumentation. So far the only counter argument is truly emotionally based and seeks to validate the current family deterioration at large because of personal experience, and without consideration of historical truth regarding gender roles.
Ignorant and insulting characterization of the lives of stay home moms! I happen to know my wife would laugh heartily at this description, right before knocking your teeth out.
What the example of the inattentive stay-at-home mom’s was meant to illustrate is that fact that a good mom is a good mom regardless of whether or not she has a job, just as a bad mom is a bad mom regardless of whether or not she stays at home. While I can agree that there has been an unfortunate decline in family life of late, I don’t see how you’ve managed to come to the conclusion that it’s because the mother is working a job. A precursory look at the life of the average American child will tell you that it isn’t a lack of a mother that is causing the problem. It’s the lack of a father. How many children do you know who don’t have their mother with them? Probably very few. But over half of the nation’s children are living in homes without their biological father. People seem to think that all a father has to do to fullfill his obligation is hand mom a check once a month. THis attitude is even demonstrated in some households where the parents are still married to each other. “You can take the children to the birthday party, dear, I’m going to play golf.” If you ask me, this is the real root of the problem.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.
Honestly do not think that women working outside the home was the norm in the past. Certainly young, unmarried women often worked. But once married, and certainly after having children, women transitioned to being homemakers or some kind of work in the home. I’m from a family of career women but until my mom’s generation they only worked until marriage.
I’m sorry if you found “stirring the stew” to be demeaning in some way. I happen to like stew. It certainly wasn’t my intention to suggest that stew-making was all stay-at-home mom’s do. I’m aware of the fact that they have many things to do. I’m also aware that the same things get done in the households of working mothers as well. 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. Still others alternate their work schedules with their spouses so that the children don’t have to be left with anyone, or perhaps only have to be babysat a couple of days a week. Of course, many families are able to make it so a parent is at home when the children are too young for school, and then both return to work when the children are school age. There are many alternatives to institutionalizing an infant in a daycare center.
I certainly hope you are being tongue-in-cheek and not presenting this story as evidence of your claim. The woman in this story isn’t acting this way because she’s over-concerned about her job! This woman is a nut! She is an abusive tyrant who gets her jollies off of torturing her little girl. This is no more a reasonable representation of a woman who is too taken up with her job than the lady who murdered all her children in the bathtub is a reasonable representation of stay-at-home moms.
Historically speaking, that is not the case. The 50’s saw the rise of enough of a middle class that we could say “most woman didn’t work”. Even then, woman from lower socio-economic situation worked. If they lived in the country, they did farm work. If they lived in the city, they cleaned houses and worked on factory lines. Prior to that era, it was only the upper-middle class and wealthiest families that could afford for the mother not to work at all. Keep in mind that many families owned family businesses. I suppose you could argue that the woman in those cases weren’t getting into cars and driving away, but they weren’t in the house watching the children either.
Allegra,
