Author Topic: Scientific reasons not to marry "Career woman" (Read 4896 times)

Geremia · « **Reply #15 on:** April 29, 2015, 10:36:51 AM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

I haven't been able to determine whether it is completely wrong for a woman to work. But I do think that they shouldn't.

Not if it interferes or delays child rearing.

If a wife is infertile, for example, I don't see what would be wrong with her working outside the home, with children at a school for example.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Another thing I have been thinking about that this article/blog posting touches on is men's authority over women. To what extent does the man have authority over his wife? Is it total authority to where everything the man says goes?

Yes, the husband has final say, but this doesn't mean he can be a tyrant.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Should the wife's opinions have any sway in the relationship?

He should hear her concerns/council.

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Should there be any negotiation at all in the relationship, and to what extent?

Not only does St. Paul say "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to our Lord" (Eph. 5:22), but he also says, immediately before, for everyone to be "Subject one to another in the fear of Christ." (Eph. 5:21).

(St. Thomas's replies to his objections for whether one man is bound to obey another may shed some light on this.)

Cantarella · « **Reply #16 on:** April 29, 2015, 11:07:28 AM »

In a marriage, there is a hierarchical obedience that should be properly understood, and which is necessary for establishing the Christian order. Wives should obey their husbands just as the husbands should obey Christ and His Church and love their wives as their own flesh. That simple rule would prevent husbands from becoming evil tyrants. This wisdom comes from Sacred Scripture:

Quote from: Ephesians 5

21 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. 24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. 33 In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

Quote from: Colossians 3

16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 18 Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and avoid any bitterness toward them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, so they may not become discouraged.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #17 on:** April 29, 2015, 11:41:36 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: InfiniteFaith
I haven't been able to determine whether it is completely wrong for a woman to work. But I do think that they shouldn't.
Not if it interferes or delays child rearing.

If a wife is infertile, for example, I don't see what would be wrong with her working outside the home, with children at a school for example.
Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Another thing I have been thinking about that this article/blog posting touches on is men's authority over women. To what extent does the man have authority over his wife? Is it total authority to where everything the man says goes?
Yes, the husband has final say, but this doesn't mean he can be a tyrant.
Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Should the wife's opinions have any sway in the relationship?
He should hear her concerns/council.
Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Should there be any negotiation at all in the relationship, and to what extent?

Not only does St. Paul say "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to our Lord" (Eph. 5:22), but he also says, immediately before, for everyone to be "Subject one to another in the fear of Christ." (Eph. 5:21).

(St. Thomas's replies to his objections for whether one man is bound to obey another may shed some light on this.)

I am really glad that you posted St. Thomas's arguments about one man obeying another man. This is something I also think about quite frequently. I will admit that I would need to sit down and study the replies to the objections a little more to fully understand what it is saying. But I have gathered my own thoughts on this subject over time...

I personally believe that a person who is not in a legitimate position of authority should not attempt to excerpt authority over another person. They simply do not have the authority to do so nor the right. I think that if you attempt to correct someone in their actions that you should not expect them to comply. They still have the freewill to make their own choice, and giving them a simple warning is as far as anyone should ever go in rebuking someone (assuming that the rebuker is not in a position of authority).

Furthermore, so long as what someone is doing does not break human, divine, or natural law...then they should be left alone in whatever it is they are doing. Unless of course they come asking for help. You can attempt to ask them if they want help, but don't expect them to say yes. Even if what they are doing is being done incorrectly (although not sinful).

Lastly, do not attempt to bring someone to submission (coercive power) with the intent of influencing them. I see this happen quite a bit. People like to tear other people down so that they can coerce them into seeing it their way. People should rely mostly on persuasive power, expert power, personal power, charisma, and sometimes legitimate power (although I would recommend against this most of the time) in influencing other people. And even then, we shouldn't set out to influence other people. It should happen more naturally unless multiple individuals are engaging in a debate on their own freewill (in which case persuasive power would come into play).

If someone is in a legitimate position of authority, then they should still allow subordinates freewill in decision making so long as it does not break human, divine, or natural law. If something is not currently against the law, but should be, then the person holding the authority should attempt to make a regulation as opposed to enforcing punishment, or even preventing someone from doing something, regarding something that is not against the law. After the regulation has been made then punishment can be enforced by authority.

As far as ratting on someone goes, I think that the perpetrator's actions have to be affecting the person who is ratting enough to justify "telling on them" (i.e. bullying, poor treatment, obvious unfair treatment) -or- the perpetrator's actions have to be grave enough to justify telling on them. Otherwise, we should not expose other people's shortcomings...leave their shortcomings to the people with legitimate authority to discover and deal with.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 29, 2015, 01:47:09 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Matthew
It seems that these days almost from the first days of school, teachers begin encouraging their students to entertain thoughts of a career. It was here, especially in the public school settings beginning in about the 1960's, that the views taught in schools began to collide with those in the home, thus fostering a spirit of independence on the part of the child apart from the authority, protection, and provision of ones parents. In contrast to the Catholic schools that my parents attended in the 1950's, where daughters were primarily educated how to manage the day to day domestic and business affairs of a household, the public schools began to encourage young women to be career minded, which in most cases, required them to consider university studies. Again, she would be encouraged to act independently from the authority, protection, and provision of her parents.
Yes, this is exactly the Marxist plan.

And ... drumroll ... as if right on cue:

Quote from: Francis

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis added his voice Wednesday to the feminist anthem of equal pay for equal work, saying it's "pure scandal" that women earn less than men for doing the same job.

Francis also lambasted the attitude of those who blame the crisis in families on women getting out of the house to work. He said such attitudes are a form of "machismo" that shows how men "want to dominate women."

Marxist, eh?

BTNYC · « **Reply #19 on:** April 29, 2015, 03:35:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

And ... drumroll ... as if right on cue:

Quote from: Francis
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis added his voice Wednesday to the feminist anthem of equal pay for equal work, saying it's "pure scandal" that women earn less than men for doing the same job.

Francis also lambasted the attitude of those who blame the crisis in families on women getting out of the house to work. He said such attitudes are a form of "machismo" that shows how men "want to dominate women."

Marxist, eh?

Well, he boasted of having Marxist friends and, for that reason, he does not find being called a Marxist insulting. Certainly, he seems to find "Marxist" a less offensive appellation than "Pope."

After all, a "Pope" is a "woman-dominating" purveoyor of "machismo," like Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii.

How I wish he would just come out and formally condemn Pius XI, his encyclical, and the whole of Catholic teaching with respect to the roles of women and men. How I long for that kind of straightforward honesty in these two-faced, skulking Modernist liars. But no such luck. Instead we'll get more of the usual fork-tongued double-talk - espousals of feminism and Marxism and religious indifferentism, all the while implying and pretending that it's all in perfecft accord with Catholic Tradition.

Geremia · « **Reply #20 on:** April 29, 2015, 03:49:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Geremia
Quote from: Matthew
It seems that these days almost from the first days of school, teachers begin encouraging their students to entertain thoughts of a career. It was here, especially in the public school settings beginning in about the 1960's, that the views taught in schools began to collide with those in the home, thus fostering a spirit of independence on the part of the child apart from the authority, protection, and provision of ones parents. In contrast to the Catholic schools that my parents attended in the 1950's, where daughters were primarily educated how to manage the day to day domestic and business affairs of a household, the public schools began to encourage young women to be career minded, which in most cases, required them to consider university studies. Again, she would be encouraged to act independently from the authority, protection, and provision of her parents.
Yes, this is exactly the Marxist plan.

And ... drumroll ... as if right on cue:

Quote from: Francis
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis added his voice Wednesday to the feminist anthem of equal pay for equal work, saying it's "pure scandal" that women earn less than men for doing the same job.

Francis also lambasted the attitude of those who blame the crisis in families on women getting out of the house to work. He said such attitudes are a form of "machismo" that shows how men "want to dominate women."

Marxist, eh?

Yes, I heard about that on EWTN and thought the same thing…
Didn't he also say something sexist like women being better than men?

And here's something from today. I just can't keep up on all this bologna:
Pope Francis: It’s ‘pure scandal’ that women earn less than men for the same work

Geremia · « **Reply #21 on:** April 29, 2015, 04:04:44 PM »

Oh, hold on, you were citing today's news!

What I thought you were talking about was another Wednesday audience where he gave an exegesis on Ephesians 5, Modernistically glossing over "wives obey your husbands" as if it's some kind of "culturally-bound" "fashion" like veiling.

shin · « **Reply #22 on:** April 29, 2015, 06:04:30 PM »

Employers are supposed to pay men more to help them in their duty to be the provider for their families. This has society-wide consequences.

Employers also should be able to choose to pay a family man more than a single man, due to his circuмstances.

These 'rights' and 'equal pay' arguments pit men and women and different groups of people against one another.. . and we know whose method that is of political power.

Geremia · « **Reply #23 on:** April 29, 2015, 09:08:33 PM »

Quote from: shin

Employers are supposed to pay men more to help them in their duty to be the provider for their families. This has society-wide consequences.

Employers also should be able to choose to pay a family man more than a single man, due to his circuмstances.

Yes, this is just.

As much as he pretends to be for "social justice," his Marxist, egalitarian ideology is diametrically opposed to true justice.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #24 on:** April 29, 2015, 10:52:32 PM »

Quote from: shin

Employers are supposed to pay men more to help them in their duty to be the provider for their families. This has society-wide consequences.

Employers also should be able to choose to pay a family man more than a single man, due to his circuмstances.

These 'rights' and 'equal pay' arguments pit men and women and different groups of people against one another.. . and we know whose method that is of political power.

I never thought of it this way before. I agree with you.

shin · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2015, 04:56:23 PM »

Glad to hear it! :smile:

Nickolas · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2015, 06:37:57 PM »

Matthew, you do your forum a disservice by posting a wholly putrid and poorly written article advocating keeping women stupid and treading water waiting for quality Catholic husbands who may never arrive.

Who has the time to dissect this humanistic article. A few points might put it into perspective though.

Social Forces is a "research" journal published by the Oxford University Press. Do you know about Oxford? Do you care about its roots and its agenda. The red flag here is firstly the claim that assumptions are made by "many social scientists". What pray tell is a "social scientist"?? Is that someone who has a minor or major in sociology? Perhaps so, but surely, that term alone must alert the reader of the bent of their dripping liberal thought of modernism. So, the first point, why give ANY relevance to an article that resorts to conclusions by modernists?? Rather, we should run from it.

The author of this article then makes the conclusion further that "if a host of studies is to believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble."

What is "host of studies"? Who did the studies? Are they published also by dear old Oxford? Why do we believe them or their studies. Who are they? Why do we rely on the conclusions advanced by their claims?

I continue. The conclusions state that if a "man" marries a "career" woman, he is asking for trouble. If the woman quits their jobs, they will be "unhappy" blah, blah, blah....

Oxford is and has always been associated with the evils of the freemasons, Bilderbergs, and the likes of the global elite who HATE Catholics. They HATE God, and everything they do is in favor of satan. He is their false god.

What do men really want and what does God want for them? A stupid women who knows nothing else but how to cook a stew, nurse a baby, and vacuum? While she waits for that magnificent husband, who may never arrive and when he does, he is not the pure man she had dreamed of, what is she to do with herself? Does she learn a skill to support herself in the likely event HE does not arrive in this deplorable Traditional Catholic time? Does she take nanny jobs, carrying for other peoples babies? Or, or, does she prepare her mind and skills to support herself if that man never arrives or when he does, he makes minimum wage and cannot support a family in the evil economy we live in.

The failure of the Catholic family in this day lies not with the Catholic woman who has pursued an education beyond high school to develop herself. The failure of the family lies with the stupid man who expects the woman to be as stupid as he is. Given the true Catholic woman is indeed Catholic, she will willingly give up that "career" to be a help mate to her beloved. The man who is fearful of the woman's intelligence and training is the ignorant one and perhaps not suitable for a woman who has prepared herself for life, whatever the outcome might be for her.

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2015, 06:16:41 AM »

Quote from: Nickolas

Matthew, you do your forum a disservice by posting a wholly putrid and poorly written article advocating keeping women stupid and treading water waiting for quality Catholic husbands who may never arrive.

Who has the time to dissect this humanistic article. A few points might put it into perspective though.

Social Forces is a "research" journal published by the Oxford University Press. Do you know about Oxford? Do you care about its roots and its agenda. The red flag here is firstly the claim that assumptions are made by "many social scientists". What pray tell is a "social scientist"?? Is that someone who has a minor or major in sociology? Perhaps so, but surely, that term alone must alert the reader of the bent of their dripping liberal thought of modernism. So, the first point, why give ANY relevance to an article that resorts to conclusions by modernists?? Rather, we should run from it.

The author of this article then makes the conclusion further that "if a host of studies is to believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble."

What is "host of studies"? Who did the studies? Are they published also by dear old Oxford? Why do we believe them or their studies. Who are they? Why do we rely on the conclusions advanced by their claims?

I continue. The conclusions state that if a "man" marries a "career" woman, he is asking for trouble. If the woman quits their jobs, they will be "unhappy" blah, blah, blah....

Oxford is and has always been associated with the evils of the freemasons, Bilderbergs, and the likes of the global elite who HATE Catholics. They HATE God, and everything they do is in favor of satan. He is their false god.

What do men really want and what does God want for them? A stupid women who knows nothing else but how to cook a stew, nurse a baby, and vacuum? While she waits for that magnificent husband, who may never arrive and when he does, he is not the pure man she had dreamed of, what is she to do with herself? Does she learn a skill to support herself in the likely event HE does not arrive in this deplorable Traditional Catholic time? Does she take nanny jobs, carrying for other peoples babies? Or, or, does she prepare her mind and skills to support herself if that man never arrives or when he does, he makes minimum wage and cannot support a family in the evil economy we live in.

The failure of the Catholic family in this day lies not with the Catholic woman who has pursued an education beyond high school to develop herself. The failure of the family lies with the stupid man who expects the woman to be as stupid as he is. Given the true Catholic woman is indeed Catholic, she will willingly give up that "career" to be a help mate to her beloved. The man who is fearful of the woman's intelligence and training is the ignorant one and perhaps not suitable for a woman who has prepared herself for life, whatever the outcome might be for her.

From a woman's view, since I am one:

Just because a woman does not have a career or go to college does not mean she is not intelligent. And of course everyone would wish for their wife to be intelligent. Yet, more importantly is for her to be virtuous. Does not the Bible say that if a person seeks first the Kingdom of God and righteousness that all else shall be added unto them?

Wisdom and knowledge are gifts from the Holy Ghost. Without God no-one is intelligent, but with God the most unlearned person can become more wise than great professors.

As to a woman preparing herself for the ideal man to marry...

I know that for me, I would rather prepare myself well in learning the tasks and responsibilities of a woman and never marry than not be properly prepared to carry out the duties of the married life.

Anyhow, just some thoughts...

May God bless you all! :-)

P.S. Oh, and an interesting fact...Most good Catholic men I have met wish to have wives who will stay home to teach and provide assistance for the family there. :-)

snowball · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2015, 06:40:40 AM »

Bergoglio the bra burner.
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/pope_francis_lashes_out_over_gender_wage_gap_the_disparity_is_pure_scandal/

Geremia · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2015, 01:26:34 AM »

Quote from: snowball

Bergoglio the bra burner

alliterative

Author Topic: Scientific reasons not to marry &quot;Career woman&quot; (Read 4896 times)

Author Topic: Scientific reasons not to marry "Career woman" (Read 4896 times)