Wife wants to return to work

[EasterJoy]

Long story short, we are a traditional Catholic family with four great kids ages 8-2. I make good money and we have a nice home, kids go to Catholic school, and while we aren’t rolling in money we have a nice lifestyle.

Before we married 10 years ago we agreed that my wife would be a stay home mom when we had kids. She has fulfilled the end of the bargain, as have I (to work and provide an income for the family.). When I am home I am helpful and play with the kids. I try to make sure she gets a break once a week going out with girlfriends, having a massage, book club, whatever.

Now she is telling me that she wants to go back to work 20 hours a week (she is a nurse.) she said being an at home mom isn’t doing it for her anymore, it’s unexciting and unfulfilling. She said she needs the outside feedback and stimulation. She says she is unhappy just being a mom and wife and needs “more than just that.” She said she will be a better and happier wife and mom if she has work outside the home.

I think the kids need a full time mom. Her going back to work would mean we had to hire a sitter or put the younger two in a daycare facility. That is not my vision of an acceptable family. I realize some people have no choice, but we do. We don’t need her to work and even she admits it’s not about the money. She said she doesn’t even care if the childcare fees break even with her income.

I don’t want my kids raised by outsiders. I want my wife to pull her end of the bargain by staying home and when our youngest is 18 she can work. As a man I take pride in providing and I don’t want to tell people my wife works or that the kids are in daycare. I want to come home to an intact family. Moms should stay home in my opinion and I don’t know what to say to a woman who finds raising kids and being a homemaker and wife boring and unfulfilling. My mom did it and seemed happy. Why would any woman want outside work?

Advice guys!

My first advice is to let go of this being about your pride. God did not put you on this earth to put what other people think about you ahead of how your wife is coping with motherhood. I say this as a SAHM with a PhD. The Lord says that the one who would be the leader of Christians must be the last of all and the servant of all. That means you, not just the bishops. Remember, too, what he said about the religious leaders who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to carry, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen.” Matt. 23:4-5a That sort of leadership, our Lord condemned. I do not mean to condemn you, but to caution you to avoid that pit dug by the devil to entrap those in authority.

The good thing about nursing is that your wife could start with shifts that she takes while you can be around to parent the children. They are always looking for people willing to do evenings and weekends. Look into that. The truth is, if she maintains her skills as a nurse, it is disability insurance. You are only a mortal; you cannot guarantee that you will always be able to bring home a wage. At any rate, try to find a way for your wife to do what she has proposed, and see how it goes. Don’t assume that she won’t change what she wants, if she sees it does any harm to the children.

 

[The_Bucket]

Think HappyDad’s wife is missing the adult interaction. Since the youngest children are too young for school, an acceptable compromise might be to allow her to work from home. I say that as I believe placing children into day care is not nearly as good for them as being with someone who genuinely cares about them. An acceptable long term compromise could be to wait until the youngest is in first grade, then take the part time job outside of the home. Another compromise may be available if there are relatives of the couple who would be available to provide care. As one can tell, I’m really against non-family day care and would avoid it, if at all possible.

This sounds good and yet…

While it’s okay with some limits for women to seek fulfillment in work outside the home, men who are providing for families rarely have this luxury.

Here’s where we start to get down a pretty bad path. Stating that it’s “okay with some limits” for women to want to work.

Not if they want to stay committed to the family. Not if they desire the respect of their wives. No, most men in this position choose love as an action: to get up every single day and go to a job they probably don’t like in order to bring home the check. Many committed men are okay with this, they made their commitment the day they said “I do”. Don’t disrespect that.

Doesn’t that sound like, well, seeking fulfillment?

Finally, the family is about the children, the children … and the children. All decisions need to be made in that context. It would be selfish of the husband to short change his kids by taking a lackadaisical attitude toward provision. It would be selfish of the wife to put her own fulfillment in front of the kids if she doesn’t have to.

Wrong. Family starts with husband and wife. If that relationship is rocky, everything is rocky. The OP hasn’t posted since page one and the follow-up posts were trollish in nature if you ask me. Or passive-aggressive. Either or both.

At any rate, this is the kind of thing that requires a sober, level-headed conversation between equal partners with both sides really having it out. And listening to each other! There have been a litany of acceptable compromises listed here, including working part-time evening shifts… more than feasible given that the field is healthcare.

Once you start saying “well it’s ok for women to do X, Y, Z within reason” you start to sound like a controlling jerk. And I say that as a breadwinner husband with a SAHM wife. If she wanted to work part-time in teaching because 6-7 years of being “just a mom” was making her crazy, I’d be all for it. And no, we don’t really need the money either.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Think HappyDad’s wife is missing the adult interaction. Since the youngest children are too young for school, an acceptable compromise might be to allow her to work from home. I say that as I believe placing children into day care is not nearly as good for them as being with someone who genuinely cares about them. An acceptable long term compromise could be to wait until the youngest is in first grade, then take the part time job outside of the home. Another compromise may be available if there are relatives of the couple who would be available to provide care. As one can tell, I’m really against non-family day care and would avoid it, if at all possible.

While it’s okay with some limits for women to seek fulfillment in work outside the home, men who are providing for families rarely have this luxury. Not if they want to stay committed to the family. Not if they desire the respect of their wives. No, most men in this position choose love as an action: to get up every single day and go to a job they probably don’t like in order to bring home the check. Many committed men are okay with this, they made their commitment the day they said “I do”. Don’t disrespect that.

Finally, the family is about the children, the children … and the children. All decisions need to be made in that context. It would be selfish of the husband to short change his kids by taking a lackadaisical attitude toward provision. It would be selfish of the wife to put her own fulfillment in front of the kids if she doesn’t have to.

She’s a nurse. Not too many opportunities to work from home and even if she did insurance precerts or case management, it wouldn’t provide any more adult interaction than chatting on social media or an internet forum from the comfort of her laptop in the family room. I think that either people haven’t read the entire original post and response threads or they just don’t have a very good grasp of health care professionals, what they do, and hours that can be worked. I shared my experience of working in health care on “off” shifts, not using outside childcare, and even homeschooling while doing it last week and only one person gave my post a response. I guess my real life experience in this area doesn’t count for much from those who have their own ideas of how things should be…without having worked a day (or night or weekend) in the hospital

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Bucket, you’re right that marriages begin with the husband and the wife. But once children enter the picture, decisions must be taken with their welfare at heart. Did my mother and father decide to find fulfillment away from the family? They may have found some in their jobs, but both were committed to fulfillment through the family they raised and they made many decisions with our welfare in mind. Even if that meant less fulfillment in their own lives away from the family. If I was married and my wife wanted to leave our 2 year old child in generic day care while she worked outside the home, I’d have a cow. But if she said, I have an idea for a home-based business I can do while still caring for our 2 year old, I’d probably fund her then and there. If she said, I propose to leave our child with my sister so he can play with his cousins while I work, I could listen to that. If the child is 6 and in school, different story, circumstances change and I’d be much more amenable to part time work outside the home. So I’m nowhere hard and fast about this … other than I would not want my small child cared for by non-family day care on any permanent basis. That’s where I draw my line.

 

[The_Bucket]

You come back and tell me where you’ll draw that line when you’re married.

My wife and I are against daycare as well, her moreso than me actually. But if she changed her tune, I’d be inclined to trust her, provided that the tune didn’t abruptly change to something like “I want to work full-time, who cares about the kids.” At that point I’d realize that there was something wrong because that’s not her.

I don’t think the OP’s (potentially theoretical) wife presented anything unreasonable. His response, however, was ridiculous in demanding that she “stick to her agreement” that she stay home all the time until all the kids are adults. There’s a lot more common ground to be found than might meet be initially apparent in similar situations.

 

[sunnygt]

But what if I suddenly said, “you know honey, this whole full time job thing is not as fun as I originally thought. I’m not that happy and I would like to work only part time from now on. I know we depend on my fulfilling the role of breadwinner, but let’s change our whole life so I can only do my job part time.” People would say I was a bad husband and a poor provider. People would say I was a loser for not wanting to work full time. Yet I am supposed to be supportive when my wife says she only wants to mother my kids part time?

I seriously hope that this is a joke. You claim she would only be raising your kids part time because she is working 20 hours a week?! Are you kidding me? God forbid she use her education and loving personality to help the sick and dying for 20 measly hours a week and teach her children the importance of serving others.

This post disgusts me. I am so glad I am not married to someone as controlling as you.

 

[EasterJoy]

…People would say I was a bad husband and a poor provider. People would say I was a loser for not wanting to work full time. Yet I am supposed to be supportive when my wife says she only wants to mother my kids part time?

People would say, people would say…why are you so concerned about what some busybody people would say? Where is that part of how we are to imitate Christ, either in authority or in submission? It is not there. That is pride talking, not virtue. Unpaid childcare and fidelity that caused others to look down on him was not beneath the one who taught bishops to wash feet. Why is it beneath you?

Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but [also] everyone for those of others. Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Phil. 2:3-8

 

[Portrait]

I hope you realise that the ‘misguided woman’s emancipation movement’ also covered things like the women’s right to vote, inherit property - basically to be treated like intelligent human beings and not children. Sorry if this notion offends you so much.

Dear Spidersfrom Mars,

Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF. Trust that you will find your time here informative and spiritually enriching. Thankyou for your response.

Let me say first, dear friend, that an orthodox Catholic will always defer to authoritative Church teaching rather than the tenets of a heterodox secular ideology. Feminism is a strain of Marxism and is subversive of the teaching of Holy Mother Church. Here is what Pope Pius XI says in his Encyclical Divini Redemptoris (on atheistic Communism):

“Refusing to human life any sacred of spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted.* Communism is particularly characterised by the rejection of any link that binds women to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. she is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. *Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right” (added emphasis mine).

Certainly, dear friend, there have been shameful abuses of women and this is why Marxist Feminism has such an intense appeal, especially in our own post-Christian age. As Belloc aptly says, “heresies survive based upon the truth they contain”. The sad fact is, however, that modern Feminism is actually an oppression of women, not their emancipation. The Catholic faithful must fight both Marxist Feminism and the underlying injustices that gave rise to it in the first place. If abortion, contraception, divorce and pornography were to disappear forthwith, then that would, of course, be a great and wonderful thing for the whole of mankind, but especially women.

Christianity, dear friend, is jolly ‘pro-women’, always has been, because it is a religion that emphasizes the dignity of womanhood. It is an indisputable fact that the example and teaching of Christ has lifted women in one country and society after another to a position that they did not previously occupy. In religions such as Judaism and Islam, women have a much more inferior place than men, but the religion of Christ is very pro-women in that it recognizes the dignity of womanhood. However, all of this is poles apart from wanting to wrench women away from their divinely ordained role of motherhood (I Tim. 5: 14; Titus 2: 4), legal access to contraceptives and abortion and a spurious egalitarianism that demands liberation from so called ‘gender stereotypes’. This is the oppression of women and a wicked repudiation of the true dignity of womanhood.

Men and women are equal in dignity but they have been assigned different roles by the divine providence. Modern feminists may speak loudly about tearing down outmoded Edwardian principles of family life, but this is misleading because what they really mean is abandoning the biblical (divine) and Church model of family life. The notion of a breadwinning husband and home-making wife is a family pattern firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture and Church teaching. This gave stability to both the family and wider society and in forsaking this divine model we have reaped a bitter harvest in terms of family breakdown and ungovernable children and youths. Our Western culture needs to understand afresh that young children need mothers who are full-time carers and guides, always on hand to counsel and console. It is decidedly wrong and damaging for a mother to be “withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life…under the same conditions as men” (Divini Redemptoris Encyclical), but this is precisely what is taking place in our age in the name of women’s emancipation of from ‘suffocating and unfulfilling gender stereotypes’.

Motherhood and nurture is plainly not the calling of every single woman. Some women, like some men, will never meet a suitable spouse and some will be called to the religious life. However, there is a jolly huge difference between a consecrated single life dedicated to the service of God and a single life deliberately chosen for selfish reasons, including career over motherhood.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Hello again.

It admits of no doubt that the official magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that a married women will remain at home and accept her divinely ordained role of wife and mother. Here is a relevant quotation from Pope Leo’ XIII’s Encyclical, Rerum Novarum:

"Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations;* a woman is by nature fitted for home-work,* and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family" (added emphasis mine)

This, along with Divini Redemptoris, remains authoritative standing Church teaching for the Catholic faithful and clearly supports the position that married women should remain at home for the good of their families. Married women should be prepared to relinquish their careers “to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family”. Children and young persons require the care of their mother in their formative years and it is a dereliction of parental duty to farm them out to nurseries and strangers. A well-formed conscience should tell one that this is not only morally unacceptable but also possibly damaging to the child’s emotional development. Mothers need to constantly be available to advise and console the child in all the ups and downs of life. Moreover, nothing is more precious than being with your own child and rearing them with Catholic values and fostering good habits. A career can never compare to a child, for a child is a gift from God endowed with human dignity.

It is very lamentable, dear friends, that the barrage of propaganda emerging from secular feminist circles since the Sixties has undermined the home-maker and mother. This natural and God-given model of family life has come under sustained attack as being ‘sexist’, ‘obsolete’ and demeaning to women. We should be quite clear that Feminism despises married women who make the right decision to devote themselves full-time to being a wife and mother. Their warped thinking leads them to believe that by opting out of the workforce they are only reinforcing the stereotypes respecting women’s priorities that Feminism has been working for decades to shatter.

The Feminist lobby has, dear friends, unrelentingly urged married women to abandon the domestic hearth and enter the world of work. Their subversive message has been, “be assertive, be aggressive, don’t get ‘trapped’ in socially sanctioned relationships like marriage. Rather be out there and be an equal contender with men, taking them on in everything. Don’t focus on having a family for that is to be a failure as a woman. Seek to be independent, not dependent on some man for your survival”. This destructive ideology has had a phenomenal negative impact upon family life and the damage which it has occasioned has yet to be calculated.

Multitudes of women have been indoctrinated into focusing on the supposed superior rewards of work outside of the home away from ‘unfulfilling’ family life. It admits of no doubt that married women claiming a high career profile for themselves has eroded their husband’s sense of responsibility as the breadwinner, which now tends to be shared as a matter of equality. A moral obligation is laid upon a woman to exclusively provide for the formation of her children and to be a ‘helpmate’ for her working husband. This Christian teaching was reinforced by the Popes when the destructive woman’s emancipation movement began to gather momentum in the last century. It is almost as if, by the divine providence, they anticipated the egregious full-blown Feminism of the 1960’s - the sad legacy of which continues to blight our Western world today:

Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XV warned that a revolution was making particular effort to snatch women the home and into the work place:

“With the decline of religion, cultured women have lost their sense of shame along with their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. Others abandoned the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into current life” (Letter Natalis Trecentesime, 1917, added emphasis mine).

The Pope being dead yet speaketh forcefully, dear friends, to our present confused and godless age. Wanting to wrench married women away from home and motherhood finds no support in official standing Church teaching. On the contrary, it is viewed in a very negative light and is linked to a Marxist ideological standpoint. Being full-time wife and mother is “an office given her by nature” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Newly-Weds, 1942). Moreover, the Encyclical, Casti Connubii, 1930, warns that “this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from* her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the wall of the home by the Gospel,* she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery and become as among the pagans, the mere instrument of man” (added emphasis mine).

Many within the Church today need to seek orientation by careful study of the papal teaching - teaching that remains perpetually valid and has not gone mouldy with the passage of time.

God bless and goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[The_Bucket]

Didn’t realize that my old-school-as-they-come mother-in-law was a Marxist Radical! She and her ridiculous notion that she could be a doctor while having five children as well. For shame I say, for shame.

Her daily Mass attendance, ensuring that her husband (also a doctor!) or another family member was home with the kids whenever she worked, devotion to the Rosary… all of it for naught in terms of piety because she had the unmitigated gall to save children’s lives with her knowledge of medicine.

 

[LightBound]

Where does that leave SAINT Gianna Beretta Molla in all of this? She was a wife, mother, and medical doctor. She continued to practice medicine, even after her children were born and even though her husband was a successful businessman. They obviously didn’t need the money, but her holy husband understood his wife’s mission to not only be a mom, but also to minister to the patients in her practice via being their doctor.

If you follow Portrait’s usual misguided interpretations, then the Church must have messed up canonizing this woman, since she was obviously not following the Magisterium and was exibiting Marxist, feminist behavior…all that and she refused an abortion, knowing it would likely be at the expense of her own life…and it was.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why this idiotic thread remains open. The OP is obviously a troll and leaving it open just gives more opportunities for the Church’s teachings to be misrepresented and taken out of context by people who think a women is nothing more than a child in a grown up body who was made to serve men in the kitchen and the bedroom.

 

[Portrait]

Dear LightBound,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Saint Gianna, dear friend, is frequently appealed to in discussions on this sort on CAF, as if her unique case somehow lent weighty support for married women working beyond the borders of the home. However, this is not as compelling an argument as some modern Catholics like are wont to allege. It certainly does not trump authoritative magisterial teaching.

First, when our church recognizes someone as a saint, it means that they are in Heaven, it decidedly does not mean all of their actions and choices were necessarily good.

Second, dear friend, whilst it is perfectly true that the Saints are to serve as examples to us, they are not the only guide that we have. They are, if you will, signposts that point towards Christ and the Church which He established. Placing our personal notions respecting the merits of a particular saint’s actions over and above Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is not a prudent or appropriate method for applying the Catholic Faith.

Very occasionally, dear friend, it will be necessary for a married mother to work outside of the home, for example in the case of long term physical/mental illness of the husband. Saint Gianna Molla evidently had a unique calling by God to serve in the field of medicine, but that in no way undercuts the general teaching of the Church that married women should remain at home caring full-time for their families.

Third, dear friend, going to Heaven does not mean that everything a person did in their life was correct, but it does mean that they died in a state of grace, so that events leading up to the death of a saint warrant special attention. So how did St. Gianna die? She refused to have an abortion when she was informed that it was ‘medically necessary’. She gave birth to her child who survived, but Gianna sadly died as a result of complications. St. Gianna sacrificed her life for her child’s. Thus the final act of her life was not done as a doctor or a ‘career woman’ but as a mother.

Finally, dear friend, the Saints are indeed worthy of emulation, but it is unwise and un-Catholic to use them for polemical purposes to support secular ideology that is at variance with Sacred Scripture and standing Church teaching. Undoubtedly, St. Gianna was a heroic woman and her life has much to teach us, but her decision to work in the field of medicine was a special calling. In fact she regarded her calling to work as a doctor as a '“mission”, which clearly implies something out of the ordinary. The normal family arrangement is for a married women to be a “keeper at home” (Titus 2: 5). The official teaching is quite clear and unambiguous regarding this, though I freely accept that it does not square or sit comfortably with the false egalitarianism that is now so fashionable.

God bless and this will be my final posting in this thread. Goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Wouldn’t 20 hours per week for a nurse be about two shifts? Couldn’t the OPs wife do two night shifts, perhaps Friday and Saturday nights. The children could be with their father without ever setting foot in a day care.

 

[PhiloMed]

Didn’t realize that my old-school-as-they-come mother-in-law was a Marxist Radical! She and her ridiculous notion that she could be a doctor while having five children as well. For shame I say, for shame.

Her daily Mass attendance, ensuring that her husband (also a doctor!) or another family member was home with the kids whenever she worked, devotion to the Rosary… all of it for naught in terms of piety because she had the unmitigated gall to save children’s lives with her knowledge of medicine.

Hey! Are you my husband? That describes my mother perfectly.

It’s nice to see that the same curmudgeons haven’t lost the axe they so enjoy grinding on this topic.

I would also remind those who harken back to the good old days of mom at home in the kitchen that technology has advanced so much that women don’t really need to be in the home as much. Particularly once the children start going to school and are involved in other activities outside of the home.

I hit the grocery store last night on my way home from work, ran three loads of laundry, made dinner and had the dishwasher loaded all before reading my son a story and putting him to bed. If this was 1900 I would have had to go to the butcher (if we could afford meat), the druggist, the general store, etc to get everything we needed in the house. I would have had to spend the day doing laundry. One day to wash and then another to iron. Maybe even two days worth of wash since I have two little ones in cloth diapers. Don’t forget hanging things out on a line. Oh and it unexpectedly rained last night so I guess everything would have been wet. Then there would have been the mending- including darning the socks.

My point is that in the age of washing machines, dish washers, mega grocery stores, cars and every other modern convenience, the typical chores of a home that a woman did are now done in a fraction of the time they once took. Of course it was necessary to have someone stay home at one time. Just the general day to day necessities of a home required it.

Back to the OP’s question: A happy wife is a happy life and a happy life will make happy children. If it will make your wife happy to work outside the home then support her in that and find a way that it still accommodates the needs of your family.

 

[dixieagle]

Dearly beloved friends,

Hello again.

It admits of no doubt that the official magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that a married women will remain at home and accept her divinely ordained role of wife and mother. Here is a relevant quotation from Pope Leo’ XIII’s Encyclical, Rerum Novarum:

"Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations;* a woman is by nature fitted for home-work,* and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family" (added emphasis mine)

This, along with Divini Redemptoris, remains authoritative standing Church teaching for the Catholic faithful and clearly supports the position that married women should remain at home for the good of their families. Married women should be prepared to relinquish their careers “to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family”. Children and young persons require the care of their mother in their formative years and it is a dereliction of parental duty to farm them out to nurseries and strangers. A well-formed conscience should tell one that this is not only morally unacceptable but also possibly damaging to the child’s emotional development. Mothers need to constantly be available to advise and console the child in all the ups and downs of life. Moreover, nothing is more precious than being with your own child and rearing them with Catholic values and fostering good habits. A career can never compare to a child, for a child is a gift from God endowed with human dignity.

Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XV warned that a revolution was making particular effort to snatch women the home and into the work place:

“With the decline of religion, cultured women have lost their sense of shame along with their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. Others abandoned the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into current life” (Letter Natalis Trecentesime, 1917, added emphasis mine).

The Pope being dead yet speaketh forcefully, dear friends, to our present confused and godless age. Wanting to wrench married women away from home and motherhood finds no support in official standing Church teaching. On the contrary, it is viewed in a very negative light and is linked to a Marxist ideological standpoint. Being full-time wife and mother is “an office given her by nature” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Newly-Weds, 1942). Moreover, the Encyclical, Casti Connubii, 1930, warns that “this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from* her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the wall of the home by the Gospel,* she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery and become as among the pagans, the mere instrument of man” (added emphasis mine).

Why not look at pronouncements from popes more recent than the 1930s? Nowhere is it written that popes of decades long past carry more authority than more recent popes.

How about this, from then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004, commenting upon an encyclical by Bl. Pope John Paul II:

*“It also means that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.” *

Or this, from Pope Francis just this January: “I strongly wish that (opportunities and responsibilities) may open themselves up further to the presence and participation of women, both in the church as well as in society and the professional sphere.”

Clearly, recent popes have stressed the crucial role women play in families, but also recognize and value their participation in public and professional capacities, as well. There’s no turning back the clock.

 

[kozlosap]

Portrait - It seems that you think that quoting popes from a century ago will make a difference to a highly educated woman living in 2014. I am inclined to believe that the OP was a troll, but even if he wasn’t, it is HE, and NOT his wife you should be preaching to.

 

[jarn98]

I say let her give it a try-she will probably won’t stick it out when she sees what a huge commitment it is. Nearly all institutional facilities (hospital, nursing homes, prisons, psych hospitals etc) require even part time and per diem employees to work every other weekend and at least every other major holiday. Mandatory overtime, requiring her to come in early or stay late is the norm. Not to mention missing many of the children’s church, school and sporting/recreational activities. Co-workers are not usually allowed to trade days with you, and administration will not be supportive-they will not let you have these days off, and they do not care if you are missing graduation, 1st communion, the playoff game or recitals. Working as a nurse, I missed out on the above for many years-and you can never get that back. School nurses are usually full timers, doctors offices usually pay salary, and you can bet she will be there late each night (unpaid) because of the routine double booking of patients resulted in prolonged office hours. I hope you can work something out.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

I say let her give it a try-she will probably won’t stick it out when she sees what a huge commitment it is. Nearly all institutional facilities (hospital, nursing homes, prisons, psych hospitals etc) require even part time and per diem employees to work every other weekend and at least every other major holiday. Mandatory overtime, requiring her to come in early or stay late is the norm. Not to mention missing many of the children’s church, school and sporting/recreational activities. Co-workers are not usually allowed to trade days with you, and administration will not be supportive-they will not let you have these days off, and they do not care if you are missing graduation, 1st communion, the playoff game or recitals. Working as a nurse, I missed out on the above for many years-and you can never get that back. School nurses are usually full timers, doctors offices usually pay salary, and you can bet she will be there late each night (unpaid) because of the routine double booking of patients resulted in prolonged office hours. I hope you can work something out.

I’m sorry that was your experience but if this wife and mother would like to work, I don’t think she should be discouraged, there are all types of jobs that require all types of backgrounds. I’m sure she could find something that meets her and her families needs.

 

[The_Bucket]

Hey! Are you my husband? That describes my mother perfectly.

Not to be stalkerish, but you seem to have a daughter named Felicity and I don’t so… good news! You’re not stuck with me!

I would also remind those who harken back to the good old days of mom at home in the kitchen that technology has advanced so much that women don’t really need to be in the home as much. Particularly once the children start going to school and are involved in other activities outside of the home.

I’d also remind those who harken back to those days that what they think they know about history is nonsense! Women certainly were around the home more often, but communal raising of children was the norm outside of a very brief window of time. While dad was off working in the vineyards, doing carpentry, heading up a merchant shop, fighting in a war, whatever… mom was not only cooking and cleaning and washing and sewing and mending and all that good stuff, she was also feeding the chickens, hoeing the garden, helping to run an inn, building a community, et cetera, et cetera. Prior to a very narrow window of time in the West, kids were basically set loose to run free and/or working alongside mom. Not just tending one hearth, but doing necessary labor to build and maintain entire communities.

My point is that in the age of washing machines, dish washers, mega grocery stores, cars and every other modern convenience, the typical chores of a home that a woman did are now done in a fraction of the time they once took. Of course it was necessary to have someone stay home at one time. Just the general day to day necessities of a home required it.

Quite right. And thensome! Women pooled labor together to raise kids and build entire communities. We don’t need all that effort just to ensure food is on the table. But you know what we do need? Volunteers in school. Soccer moms/dads. And yes, we need health care workers, teachers, folks manning all the stations in service industries, et cetera.

The way I see it, women are just getting paid now for all the stuff they previously had to do just to ensure communities survived and thrived.

 

[jarn98]

I’m sorry that was your experience but if this wife and mother would like to work, I don’t think she should be discouraged, there are all types of jobs that require all types of backgrounds. I’m sure she could find something that meets her and her families needs.

I didn’t discourage her-in my first sentence I said she should give it a try. Then I presented the realities facing nurses today-as experienced by myself and every clinical nurse I know. Maybe in her area, things are different-but since she has been out of the field for 8 years, she is unlikely to be offered the best jobs out there. And also in closing, I said I hoped things would work out.