All Catholics here will recognize th deleterious impact of the feminist movement on the psychological and spiritual health of the family unit: With mom leaving the household to pursue a career instead of a normal family life, prozac, ritalin, and transgenderism were the inevitable outcomes.

But what is often missed is that removing the mother from the home was not the opening salvo in the war against the Catholic family:

Long before abortion, contraception, divorce, and careerism told defeminized woman she too could be a man, the industrial revolution fired the first shot.  Prior to the industrial revolution, most men did not leave the household to go to work.  They worked in the home, and not just farmers, but the shopkeepers too: If you were a shoe cobbler, a baker, and tanner, a butcher, or a blacksmith, your shop was generally located in the family home.  But after the advent of the industrial revolution, that all changed.  The man would now leave the home to go to the factory, and the family was left behind, without his salutary influence for the better part of the day.

If the natural organization of the family unit was BOTH parents at home (as was the case all through Christendom), removing the father from the home could not be without significant consequence.  The most obvious one was that the spiritual leader was gone, and replaced with the mother.  The family no longer prayed together throughout the day.  Is it any wonder that all the revolutions which would spring up so soon after 1760 (i.e., the generally acclaimed commencement date of the industrial revolution), where passion (emotion) replaced reason and logic, began secularizing the once Catholic nations?  Where the predominant masculine traits of reason/logic gave way to the feminine emotion/passsions? 

This development is probably also to blame for the rise in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity during the 19th century (i.e., excessive mothering).

It just never really occurred to me before that BOTH parents in the home was the norm, and changing that wholesome organization of the family unit could not have been without consequence.

Even a crazed atheist can see it:

"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society... Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.

Theodore Kaczynski (The Unabomber)

Keep in mind, this Manifesto was written 20 years ago:

"Let's stick to the practical and the concrete: Would you like it if people lived in a virtual world? If machines were smarter than people? If, in the future, people, animals and plants were products of technology? If you don't like these ideas, then for you the computer and biological sciences clearly are dangerous.

All Catholics here will recognize th deleterious impact of the feminist movement on the psychological and spiritual health of the family unit: With mom leaving the household to pursue a career instead of a normal family life, prozac, ritalin, and transgenderism were the inevitable outcomes.

But what is often missed is that removing the mother from the home was not the opening salvo in the war against the Catholic family:

The feminist error is obvious, and Rerum Novarum (1891) states it plainly in paragraph 42:

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.

Yet Pope Leo XIII focused in more depth and earlier in that encyclical on how industrialized society undermines fathers (emphasis added):

13. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents."(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

Note the bolded type above. A stable and united community of men need to reinforce and stand by each other as fathers and as heads of household. In this era, though, simply returning men to the home won't do it; the lockdowns showed that many fathers ordered to work from home simply degraded into behaving like the oldest child in the family.

In contrast, some of us might remember fathers whose wives and children dared not undermine the man of the house while he was at work, not only because of his authority but also because the other women and children of the community would look down on such insubordination. The culture we have now won't change soon, but that's not to stop smaller groups of right-minded people from refusing to live in a decadent way.

It's good that we have work-from-home jobs so it is possible for both parents to be at home. And it is nice when the husband can help with the household when things get too overwhelming (no extended family help or involvement).