Ain't no wimmin gettin no education on MY watch, by cracky!

In order to fulfill the holiness that God calls us to, sometimes we have to engage the world in a positive way. A woman who intends to get married may well intend to stay home and take care of the children. But then other factors that were unforseen may intrude. Her husband may take ill. He may die and then she would have no choice but to go out into the world and try to make a living. If she has a good education her chances are better than if she is uneducated.
Also, ther are certain situations in even the most masculine professions in which you cannot do without women. i.e. the guard at a womens prison, police arresting and searching female subjects etc...
Who knows it may be that God calls certain women to fulfill certain functions in society. An educated woman could more likely do it better than an uneducated woman.      

 :applause:

What are the assumptions of those who believe intelligent (and even average) young women should have a college education, as a matter of course?

1) that a "serious" education requires college.

2) that a successful career requires college education and "socialization"

3) that a wife cannot rely on a husband or life insurance but must have a "back-up" plan

Do I believe these are the true motivations?

No, I don't.  I believe the true motivation in the parents and the women is social status, its perqs, and the avoidance of social shaming.
 
Is that to say there are no young women whose destiny is to be one of intellectual exertion, artistic creation and accomplishment?  No, there might be very few who do not wish for marriage, who do not follow that path of seduction by the world, the world of men - but who wish instead to pursue a certain avocation for which they have unusual talents.  

But such women are the great exception.

Unfortunately, the way things are now, the parents of every talented young woman thinks she must strive to achieve some high level of accomplishment - and most, in their heart of hearts believe that is more important than being a mother, which they regard as a sacrifice, rather than as a fulfillment.

I really feel the need to mention that I do recognize that some people here have personally benefited from the formal education of women, so I hope I am not hurting any feelings by stating my opinion here.  Words like “realistic” have been used a lot, so I guess my thoughts are more philosophical and maybe not always practical.

I had a conversation with a priest once (not about this topic specifically, but one from which parallels to this subject could be drawn) and I remember him saying how people are too quick to decide that if something isn’t easily labeled as sinful, we decide it is acceptable, then we decide it is good, and eventually we determine it is right.  We want right and wrong to be perfectly tangible, easily identified, and something we can find specifically written about in the Bible or the Catechism.  If it isn’t there, we tend to justify it, even if the motivations behind it aren’t really pure, or risks that result are very high.  

His point was that we are called sometimes to model our lives after the way things should be, even if it is a bit of an inconvenience to us or it isn’t the most appealing or comfortable option.  We have to look beyond what is a sin on the surface, and consider how something might lead to sin, and also, how it squares up with what we do know is truly right from scripture and Catholic doctrine. If we want a Catholic world, shouldn't we live in a way that reflects it?

 My thinking is that if ideally women who intend to marry are supposed to end up at home as mothers, then they should try to emulate that role as much as possible, beginning when they are old enough to be married and bear children.  

Again, I’m not saying that it is realistic in today’s society, but I am thinking in very basic terms.  If we push out all the outside noise and demands and perceived limitations of the world, we can ask, how did God create women?  For what purpose did he create them? If we consider the answers to those questions, can we not conclude that an extended adolescence (labeled by the world as personal growth, social experience, life preparedness, a backup plan etc.) works counter to God’s design?

I just do not see a college degree as being worth the cost for women who intend to marry. A person will always be subjected to negative influences because you cannot escape at least some liberal arts (indoctrination to worldly values) courses in college. Judging from facebook posts I’ve read, my peers who went to Catholic colleges have come out more liberal and agnostic than they went in, so I don’t think you can get around anti-Catholic teachings anywhere. The stakes seem very high when a family gambles that their young daughter will be able to navigate through all the inevitable negatives unscathed.

Formal education is not the only way to gain knowledge and grow intellectually.  I have a degree, but I am sure from the way I write and communicate, it is pretty hard to tell. I wasn’t blessed with the gift of intelligence, so my time in college might have been four years of applying lipstick to a pig.  For other women, the benefit is greater, because college could be an outlet for academic talent, but maybe for her, the risks are even higher.  Naturally intelligent women should only be surrounding themselves with knowledge that compliments her faith and values.  Otherwise, her intelligence could be used by the devil for very evil purposes.  Being book smart does not protect a young woman from corruption and immoral indoctrination. You can’t really get away from that with formal education.

With a few exceptions, most women will obtain a degree that isn’t useful on its own after years of sitting on the shelf.  Do we then advocate all mothers work at least part time to keep their resume current in case their husbands die?  How much do we alter traditional roles to adapt to modern demands?
If we are really honest, how many women are going to earn a degree and then be willing to set it aside and not use it in order to pursue marriage and family?  Most women are not going to study for that long and then think nothing of never actually using it. It is like buying a second home just in case the first one burns down.  
Do parents spend all this money really expecting that their daughters may never use the education they have earned, or have they gotten behind the “you can have it all” slogan of the career woman/working mother?

There are many jobs a woman could do out of absolute necessity, that do not require a degree.  If she owns a home, opening a daycare is an option.  All the domestic skills developed being at home could be used in some way.  If we assume that there are as many widowers as there are widows, we could say that ideally, a widow could seek employment doing childcare or house cleaning for a widower.
 
Yes, it seems unlikely and unrealistic, but I am thinking in terms of how things should be. I am not sure how the world ever gets back to “how things should be” if we refuse to even try.  We instead want to adapt, and broaden a path we were told would be narrow.

 

Let's not forget that women going to universities are distracting the men, leveling downward the quality of education while absorbing more resources, and depriving likely more qualified men of seats.

PenitentWoman: So an 18 year old woman should burden her family and/or herself with years of debt ...


I specifically want to address this particular point, as it seems that many/most on this forum associate college with debt.

There are many families out there who do not go into debt to pay for their child/children's college education. I come from such a family; my parents did not take out loans to pay for my college education, my father could easily afford the tuition for the private college I attended.

My own children attended college (one attended a private college) without incurring debt, as my husband easily paid for their tuition. While it is popular to portray "trads" as always having a modest or even low income, that is not always the case.

It is true that college is not *necessary* for a women who is looking at marriage/motherhood as her vocation. But for many women, especially those who are raised in the higher social/income brackets, college is simply viewed as part of the total education package, i.e. it doesn't stop with high school.

Additionally, for women who will marry professional men, college allows these women time to mature a bit more and gain additional social experience before taking on the responsibility such marriages entail. Being a Junior League member, part of the Historical Preservation Society, an adept hostess for your husband's business functions ... these are all positions that women of a certain social class undertake, along with the duties of wife and mother.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the traditionalist movement was one primarily initiated by intellectuals ... and highly intelligent, educated men do not often marry uneducated/undereducated 18 year old girls.

Choosing a good college may take a little extra time and effort for a traditionalist, but there are many good ones out there, both in the U.S. and overseas. They be out of the financial reach of many, but they do exist.

The difference I've noticed is that most women who've spent time in college are typically puffed up and conceited, with an exaggerated sense of their own knowledge and capacities.

And they tend to be more coarse and shrewish as well.  But I guess that's necessary "social experience," in this degenerate society.

Men should never let themselves be deceived by the false pretense that the college education of women is for their benefit.  Are there any heroines of great novels that spent four years in college?  College effects the intellectual vulgarization of women.

I doubt you will ever find the heroine of a novel to have positively affected by her school education, except insofar as it is mortifying.  On the contrary.  The mystery and allure of nearly all heroines in literature is nearly always a function of their relative seclusion from the vulgarity of common social life - if not - (as in the case of Natasha Rostova) - it is compensated by youth and very high station.  

You find a Thomas Hardy "heroine" in the country for a reason.

Having spent a modest amount of time in social interaction with academics, men and women, I can honestly say that their conversation in areas outside their fields tends to be very much lacking in depth and thoughtfulness.  You just do not hear many deep conversations.  

College vulgarizes, and in America, the vulgarization, sad to say, is the "social experience" that enables someone to engage in idle chat at social functions.