Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

[LilHomemaker]

I kind of skimmed throught the posts and couldn’t find the answer to where the USCCB have a stand on women working or not working.

I certainly don’t feel the OP question is socialist or communist at all. I have heard several talks on communism and most have pointed out that part of the communist ideal was to get the women out of the house and working, thus to help break down families. It is funny how today’s modernism has ideas twisted.

There are women out there that do have to work. They do need the money. One poster stated that families that stay at home are priviliedged. This is so not true. I have known many women who have chosen to stay at home and thus give up many material posessions just to be there for their children. As you can tell by my name I am a homemaker. I only work every once in a while at a doctors office when they call asking for help to fill in. This not very often and that is how I want it. I need to pick up these few days so we can pay for my son’s education. I am not home most of every day because we are priviliged because we are not. One of my son’s best friend’s mom is a stay at home mom and they live in a very, very small house. Believe me they are not priviledged, except to have the privilidge of having their mom with them.

I understand some women have to work, that happens and there are women who can afford to stay at home. It is out there but today so many women choose to work. Having to work to pay for necessities and having to work to pay for material posessions are two different things. My mother had to work to help my dad and it was very hard for her and us not having her there. When she was there it was great. I have known other women members in my family who work and it is very hard for them and their family. For the most part, the ones that are struggling and having a hard time where both work are the husbands, the children also, but the husbands are exhausted but yet come home to housework and grocery shopping and laundry and cooking dinner.

My grandmother worked side by side my grandfather on their tenant farm and she worked hard but most of her work was inside their rented home, caring for 7 little children. With 7 children you are not out in the fields too much and when family looks back and remember her, they say, "she was always there for them.

Again, there are those that have to work and those that choose to work.

The traditional family is not communist at all. There is nothing communist about a woman coming home to care for her family and thus a job opening up for man to go to work and support his.

 

[manualman]

…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.

You make a good point differentiating between pre-school age kids and school kids. My reference to my wife’s vehemence is to the former. She worked in the 2 year old room.

I’m unclear on how you know that only 12-16 kids go home after school and let themselves into an empty house. I’ll tell you one thing that I DO know that happens from personal observation. The “stew-stirrers” (your term) often are begged to drive home the kids of the two parent families.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I kind of skimmed throught the posts and couldn’t find the answer to where the USCCB have a stand on women working or not working.

I certainly don’t feel the OP question is socialist or communist at all. I have heard several talks on communism and most have pointed out that part of the communist ideal was to get the women out of the house and working, thus to help break down families. It is funny how today’s modernism has ideas twisted.

There are women out there that do have to work. They do need the money. One poster stated that families that stay at home are priviliedged. This is so not true. I have known many women who have chosen to stay at home and thus give up many material posessions just to be there for their children. As you can tell by my name I am a homemaker. I only work every once in a while at a doctors office when they call asking for help to fill in. This not very often and that is how I want it. I need to pick up these few days so we can pay for my son’s education. I am not home most of every day because we are priviliged because we are not. One of my son’s best friend’s mom is a stay at home mom and they live in a very, very small house. Believe me they are not priviledged, except to have the privilidge of having their mom with them.

I understand some women have to work, that happens and there are women who can afford to stay at home. It is out there but today so many women choose to work. Having to work to pay for necessities and having to work to pay for material posessions are two different things. My mother had to work to help my dad and it was very hard for her and us not having her there. When she was there it was great. I have known other women members in my family who work and it is very hard for them and their family. For the most part, the ones that are struggling and having a hard time where both work are the husbands, the children also, but the husbands are exhausted but yet come home to housework and grocery shopping and laundry and cooking dinner.

My grandmother worked side by side my grandfather on their tenant farm and she worked hard but most of her work was inside their rented home, caring for 7 little children. With 7 children you are not out in the fields too much and when family looks back and remember her, they say, "she was always there for them.

Again, there are those that have to work and those that choose to work.

The traditional family is not communist at all. There is nothing communist about a woman coming home to care for her family and thus a job opening up for man to go to work and support his.

Thank you. Thank you thank you so much. Thank you for understanding what I was asking and not jumping on me like others have. And thank you for your wonderful response, I agree with everything you’ve said and it represents the true intentions of my asking.

 

[Allegra]

You make a good point differentiating between pre-school age kids and school kids. My reference to my wife’s vehemence is to the former. She worked in the 2 year old room.

I’m unclear on how you know that only 12-16 kids go home after school and let themselves into an empty house. I’ll tell you one thing that I DO know that happens from personal observation. The “stew-stirrers” (your term) often are begged to drive home the kids of the two parent families.

You misunderstand. Latchkey isn’t going home to an empty house. It’s the name of the after-hour care program that is run by the YMCA. None of our kids got home to an empty house. I work at an elementary school and if there isn’t someone there that is over the age of 13, the bus brings them back to the school. It is illegal in our locality for children under the age of 10 to be left home alone.

 

[manualman]

Forgive me, but do you really believe that? You are telling me that the bus driver stops at the house of each and every student and verifies that an adult opens the door for the kid before leaving. I don’t buy it for a second.

It sure ain’t that way around here! There are two bus stops in our entire subdivision. Bus stops, kids get out, bus driver leaves. No way he knows what happens after that.

 

[Allegra]

Forgive me, but do you really believe that? You are telling me that the bus driver stops at the house of each and every student and verifies that an adult opens the door for the kid before leaving. I don’t buy it for a second.

It sure ain’t that way around here! There are two bus stops in our entire subdivision. Bus stops, kids get out, bus driver leaves. No way he knows what happens after that.

Yes. That is what they do until the 5th grade. The bus pulls up to some houses. If there are several children in the same block, the adult or older sibling has to fetch them from the corner. Some parents arrange with the driver for a neighbor to be responsible for their child, but they all have to have an adult come to get them or the bus brings them back to school. You can bet I believe it! I’ve sat with them in the office while the secretary calls their mom and dad.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

The traditional family is not communist at all. There is nothing communist about a woman coming home to care for her family and thus a job opening up for man to go to work and support his.

This isn’t how our world works, though. If I quit my job Monday morning to stay home, more than likely my position would be filled by another woman. There just are more women with the qualifications to do my job than there are men.

Who gets today’s jobs is determined by education, qualifications, and skill sets. Except for some very few exceptions, gender just doesn’t play into it anymore. The world has moved on. Thankfully.

And besides, in the US at least, it’s illegal to use gender as a determining factor for employment.

Again, as I said in my previous post, when an adult doesn’t have a job so she can provide for her family, the solution is not to force/encourage/support someone else giving up his job. Workers are not interchangable cogs. The solution is to train people so they can compete for existing jobs that are out there.

Luna

 

[Allegra]

This isn’t how our world works, though. If I quit my job Monday morning to stay home, more than likely my position would be filled by another woman. There just are more women with the qualifications to do my job than there are men.

Who gets today’s jobs is determined by education, qualifications, and skill sets. Except for some very few exceptions, gender just doesn’t play into it anymore. The world has moved on. Thankfully.

And besides, in the US at least, it’s illegal to use gender as a determining factor for employment.

Again, as I said in my previous post, when an adult doesn’t have a job so she can provide for her family, the solution is not to force/encourage/support someone else giving up his job. Workers are not interchangable cogs. The solution is to train people so they can compete for existing jobs that are out there.

Luna

I don’t think that most the people on this forum are advocating for it to be illegal for women to work. I think they feel that women have some sort of moral obligation to choose not to work.

 

[LilHomemaker]

I don’t think that most the people on this forum are advocating for it to be illegal for women to work. I think they feel that women have some sort of moral obligation to choose not to work.

Not a moral obligation to choose not to work but to choose family first. Many women today choose career first, family second. It is very hard to burn the candle at both end. I, also, think alot of women are realizing this, giving up material possessions and returning home and finding it a great fulfillment not a drudgery as they were told it was.

 

[LilHomemaker]

This isn’t how our world works, though. If I quit my job Monday morning to stay home, more than likely my position would be filled by another woman. There just are more women with the qualifications to do my job than there are men.

Who gets today’s jobs is determined by education, qualifications, and skill sets. Except for some very few exceptions, gender just doesn’t play into it anymore. The world has moved on. Thankfully.

And besides, in the US at least, it’s illegal to use gender as a determining factor for employment.

Again, as I said in my previous post, when an adult doesn’t have a job so she can provide for her family, the solution is not to force/encourage/support someone else giving up his job. Workers are not interchangable cogs. The solution is to train people so they can compete for existing jobs that are out there.

Luna

I understand all that you are saying. My post was in reference to those commenting that women returning home being communist. . As I said many women have to work but some choose to work. There is a big difference.
I don’t feel anyone should be forced to come home but again it is not communist for women to be home or encouraged to be home and care for the family and men to work and provide for the family. As one makes a change in choices it causes change in another direction.

Also, just because the world moves on and things change doesn’t mean those changes are right. There are always consequences to our actions. Approved by society or not.

 

[LisaA]

I understand all that you are saying. My post was in reference to those commenting that women returning home being communist. . As I said many women have to work but some choose to work. There is a big difference.
I don’t feel anyone should be forced to come home but again it is not communist for women to be home or encouraged to be home and care for the family and men to work and provide for the family. As one makes a change in choices it causes change in another direction.

Also, just because the world moves on and things change doesn’t mean those changes are right. There are always consequences to our actions. Approved by society or not.

I would second this and point out that society has swung in almost the opposite direction and women are ‘encouraged’ to work and IMO made to feel guilty or as if they are wasting their talents/education by staying home to focus on their family.

My perspective is from being the child of a working mom in the day when it was very very rare. When I was growing up virtually the ONLY working moms were either widows or divorcees who certainly had to work due to the loss of a breadwinner. I remember the not so subtle comments about my mother’s choice to work. She was well educated and focused on career before that attitude was in style.

I think we’ve now overreacted to what was probably a limiting and somewhat demeaning attitude toward women’s options (how could they be doctors or attorneys or architects) and women are expected to have a career in addition to raising their families. Particularly women who have college degrees, particularly postgraduate, feel the pressure to work and do something ‘important’ as if raising children well were not the most important task any human being could perform.

“Women’s Lib” which is probably an antiquated term, demeaned women who made a choice other than a career path. I also think young men raised in the subsequent generation are much more likely to think and pressure their wives to work. I saw a survey of what each sex valued in a potential mate circa 1950 various times in between to the present day. In the 1950s a woman looked to a man’s breadwinning potential and a man looked for a woman who would be a good mother and homemaker. Even in the 1960s this didn’t change too much but as time went on more and more women simply wanted a 'good companion" “sense of humor” etc and more men wanted a woman who could contribute financially to the family’s upward mobility.

As noted above, sometimes change isn’t positive and the high divorce rate, increase in never wed mothers and deadbeat dads may well be what we reaped by sowing the seeds of discontent with respect to a traditional family structure.

Lisa

 

[Allegra]

Not a moral obligation to choose not to work but to choose family first. Many women today choose career first, family second. It is very hard to burn the candle at both end. I, also, think alot of women are realizing this, giving up material possessions and returning home and finding it a great fulfillment not a drudgery as they were told it was.

Drudgery? Taking care of one’s own home and children is drudgery? I call it “life” and it get’s done whether a woman has a job or not. A day where one gets to spend all day cleaning their house and spending time with their kids is called a “day off”. If their husband happens to be present as well it’s called a “vacation”.

I agree that most middle class woman choose career first chronologically. It makes sense to do so. I would encourage any girl to get her education and a job before getting married and starting a family. However, most women that choose to have a family generally put that family first, speaking priority wise. This may or may not include maintaining a career. It may be hard to burn the candle at both ends, as you say but that’s also life. Sometimes balancing the different facets of life can be challenging and some women are built with stronger constitutions than others. I would argue that if a woman OR a man is causing too much stress on their family, they need to make some sort of changes so they can be available. After all, what is the point of working in the first place is your family isn’t well? I get a great deal of enjoyment and fullfillment from my job, but when it comes down to it, I work to live, not live to work, and family comes first.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

There is a big difference. I don’t feel anyone should be forced to come home but again it is not communist for women to be home or encouraged to be home and care for the family and men to work and provide for the family. As one makes a change in choices it causes change in another direction.

I agree, but I wish gender weren’t part of the conversation. There are women who earn more and provide their families with better benefits. In such a situation, if the couple decides that it’s better for their family for one parent to be home with the children, there’s nothing wrong with the man staying home.

Also, just because the world moves on and things change doesn’t mean those changes are right. There are always consequences to our actions. Approved by society or not.

Obviously. But if we want to remain relevant in today’s world, we do have to acknowledge that the world isn’t what it we think it was in the 1950s or in upper class Victorian society. Women are educated and have skill sets that allow them to provide economically for their families. If we poo-poo that or pass judgement on working women we’re marginalizing ourselves and our influence on society. And I think the USCCB understands this with its position in favor of equal employment opportunities.

Luna

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Coming into this discussion very late to say that from my POV, having gone through the “feminist” era myself, women were sold a bill of goods in the deal. We were told that we had a right to equal work, equal pay, that sex should be without consequence (and therefore, without meaning), that children and family were less important than our individual self-esteem and self-realization (always in a career).

Now look at where we are, 30 years later. Women have grown up with nothing other than the knowledge that they are expected to work, not only to work, mind you, but to find a CAREER that gives them satisfaction and monetary reward. Women who dare to express the desire to marry and raise their own children are scoffed at, mocked, derided, ignored. With 3 generations of working women in the can, what have we gained?

Our children are warehoused so we can go to those careers. When we reclaim our babies at the end of the day, we are already tired and impatient with them because we have spent the entire day in the company of other adults. Then we go home, to fulfill the other side of our duties, since the home is still considered mainly to be the purview of women, regardless of whether or not she has an outside job. The children spend their early and most formative years in the company of other orphans, with total strangers, even if those strangers are quite loving. They are not mother.

For this reason, and many others (contraception and its fallout), it is my considered opinion that the “feminist” movement or whatever name you wish to call it, has HARMED the lot of women more than “liberated” them. We are now expected to work outside the home, to enjoy our work, to be ambitious in that career, and yet, someone still has to do the lion’s share of childcare and home care once both working parents return. And most of us WANT to be there for our children, we still have the nurturing instinct that God built into us. So it’s not even as though we can just split the duties with our husbands and all is well.

There were many agendas at play during the 1960’s and 1970’s. It’s naive and simple to make that time into some kind of ideal “liberation” for women when there was more to the movements than met the eye.

 

[LilHomemaker]

Drudgery? Taking care of one’s own home and children is drudgery? I call it “life” and it get’s done whether a woman has a job or not. A day where one gets to spend all day cleaning their house and spending time with their kids is called a “day off”. If their husband happens to be present as well it’s called a “vacation”.

I agree that most middle class woman choose career first chronologically. It makes sense to do so. I would encourage any girl to get her education and a job before getting married and starting a family. However, most women that choose to have a family generally put that family first, speaking priority wise. This may or may not include maintaining a career. It may be hard to burn the candle at both ends, as you say but that’s also life. Sometimes balancing the different facets of life can be challenging and some women are built with stronger constitutions than others. I would argue that if a woman OR a man is causing too much stress on their family, they need to make some sort of changes so they can be available. After all, what is the point of working in the first place is your family isn’t well? I get a great deal of enjoyment and fullfillment from my job, but when it comes down to it, I work to live, not live to work, and family comes first.

I am not saying I think caring for one’s family is a drudgery, that is what our culture tells women that it is. It can be one of the most put down and teased jobs but in reality it is one of a woman’s highest calling.

I, also agree, young girls should get an education. I did. My father always encouraged that. Training in caring for one’s home should be part of her education, too. That seems to be lost.

I am not putting down any woman who works or has to work. I just hate to see women choose career, further education and climbing the ladder over family. And as I previous noted I am a part time nurse and I have to take questioning and teasing when saying no to my boss and coworkers so I can say yes to family and home.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Coming into this discussion very late to say that from my POV, having gone through the “feminist” era myself, women were sold a bill of goods in the deal. We were told that we had a right to equal work, equal pay, that sex should be without consequence (and therefore, without meaning), that children and family were less important than our individual self-esteem and self-realization (always in a career).

Now look at where we are, 30 years later. Women have grown up with nothing other than the knowledge that they are expected to work, not only to work, mind you, but to find a CAREER that gives them satisfaction and monetary reward. Women who dare to express the desire to marry and raise their own children are scoffed at, mocked, derided, ignored. With 3 generations of working women in the can, what have we gained?

Our children are warehoused so we can go to those careers. When we reclaim our babies at the end of the day, we are already tired and impatient with them because we have spent the entire day in the company of other adults. Then we go home, to fulfill the other side of our duties, since the home is still considered mainly to be the purview of women, regardless of whether or not she has an outside job. The children spend their early and most formative years in the company of other orphans, with total strangers, even if those strangers are quite loving. They are not mother.

For this reason, and many others (contraception and its fallout), it is my considered opinion that the “feminist” movement or whatever name you wish to call it, has HARMED the lot of women more than “liberated” them. We are now expected to work outside the home, to enjoy our work, to be ambitious in that career, and yet, someone still has to do the lion’s share of childcare and home care once both working parents return. And most of us WANT to be there for our children, we still have the nurturing instinct that God built into us. So it’s not even as though we can just split the duties with our husbands and all is well.

There were many agendas at play during the 1960’s and 1970’s. It’s naive and simple to make that time into some kind of ideal “liberation” for women when there was more to the movements than met the eye.

Thank you. Bravo.

 

[FaithBuild18]

The USCCB is committed to fair employment practices.

**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

Actually, I just want to return to this point. It’s easy to think that all Americans are pioneers, entrepreneurs, or even private sector workers, but the reality is that the vast majority of workers, yes, can be substituted for in the work force like widgets.

Yes, if you’re smart enough you can obtain the American dream and start your own business and slide yourself into a clever niche in the market, but this is rare and becoming increasingly rare in society. There are millions upon millions of jobs in this country held by people who learned everything they know only after getting the job, and which require only highly common skills that can be learned virtually by anyone.

 

[LisaA]

I agree, but I wish gender weren’t part of the conversation. There are women who earn more and provide their families with better benefits. In such a situation, if the couple decides that it’s better for their family for one parent to be home with the children, there’s nothing wrong with the man staying home.

Obviously. But if we want to remain relevant in today’s world, we do have to acknowledge that the world isn’t what it we think it was in the 1950s or in upper class Victorian society. Women are educated and have skill sets that allow them to provide economically for their families. If we poo-poo that or pass judgement on working women we’re marginalizing ourselves and our influence on society. And I think the USCCB understands this with its position in favor of equal employment opportunities.

Luna

Perhaps a little picky point but gender SHOULD be part of the conversation. Men and women are different and one of the most destructive forces of feminism is trying to make gender irrelevant as if it were necessary to be the same to be equal either under the law or under the eyes of God. We are equal and no one can argue against that. But we are not the same. Men and women not only have different plumbing but different natures. People who tried to give girls trucks to play with and boys dolls found that the girls tucked their trucks into bed or and boys turned the dolls into weapons. Instead of glorifying and recognizing the benefits of these differences, I think feminism has tried to make females into “She Men” and to feminize males into…well you know.

I agree there is nothing wrong with a stay at home dad. I have a co-worker whose profession pays significantly more than her husband’s and she’s at work while he’s at home with their two boys. They have made that decision for their family and it works for them. There is nothing wrong with women getting an education or focusing on preparing themselves for a profession either. No one has argued that. But I don’t think we can pretend that gender doesn’t matter either for profession or for child rearing nor that men and women have different natures and when you try to go against those natures, the unintended consequences are pretty dramatic. The goals of feminism might have been well intended, at least on the part of some. But the actual results have IMO been pretty disasterous in many ways.

Lisa

 

[Allegra]

I am not saying I think caring for one’s family is a drudgery, that is what our culture tells women that it is. It can be one of the most put down and teased jobs but in reality it is one of a woman’s highest calling.

I, also agree, young girls should get an education. I did. My father always encouraged that. Training in caring for one’s home should be part of her education, too. That seems to be lost.

I am not putting down any woman who works or has to work. I just hate to see women choose career, further education and climbing the ladder over family. And as I previous noted I am a part time nurse and I have to take questioning and teasing when saying no to my boss and coworkers so I can say yes to family and home.

I would hate to see any parent choose their career over their family. Children need their mothers AND their fathers. Both husbands and wives need their spouses. If any person’s job is taking over their homelife, it’s time for a reevaluation.

 

[LilHomemaker]

I would hate to see any parent choose their career over their family. Children need their mothers AND their fathers. Both husbands and wives need their spouses. If any person’s job is taking over their homelife, it’s time for a reevaluation.

I agree. :yup: