Here is a thoughtful reply from the man who posted the above article (on another forum):

Greetings in Christ.

 

This was in part what I was trying to get at in my response to the Original Poster in the Mens Forum ("What do men want in a relationship").  There seems to indeed be a prevalance of women wanting their cake and eating it too.  And I've encountered my fair share of women who think they are impressing me by the careerpath they are on or the material things they own.  There is, of course, nothing evil in these things in and of themselves - for even Proverbs 31 speaks of the virtuous women who sells her items at the market.  But as this article writer points out from studies done on this issue, and correctly I believe if referring to the modern woman in western society, "If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy."  

 

So I will do something I do not often do -  I will offer my opinion publically.  It is nothing more than that - but it is based on my both my personal experience and deep reflections on this topic following the failure of my own (non-canonical) marriage.  You are welcome to disagree with me, but please, in charity, don't throw stones as I've been wounded plenty enough already.  

 

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.

 

After graduating college, she again acts independently by establishing her career and is able to - apart from the authority, protection, and provision of her parents - buy her own car, own house, etc.  Finally, there is time to consider that one thing that her nature longs for - marriage and children.  But there now is a problem.  In the not so distant past that simple ceremony at the beginning of the wedding - the one where the father hands over his daughter to her husband to be - really meant something.  It meant he was handing over the authority, protection, and provision of his daughter to her husband to be.  But now, it seems, it is just a empty symbol.  For many women have traded these beautiful provisions in God's plan for their lust of independence.  How will she now be able to accept her husband's authority, protection and provision when she has been so busy independently exercising these on her own since at least her days in college?  

 

Surely, in today's two income economy, there will be sacrifices that will need to be made if she is not working.  Will she accept or scoff at her husband's financial provision for the family?  Will she embrace her husband's protection when he sees a spiritual trap that may lead her into sin, or will she continue to follow her own intuition as she has come accustomed to?  And will she accept her husbands authority as her spiritual head or continue her desire to act independently from any authority but her own?  Look at the statistics:  these are the very issues that are at the center of the failure of most marriages.

 

No, I'm not against education, nor women working if they must - or if they believe that they have truly found that a particular job is their calling from God.  Nor do I direct this toward those who grew up in abusive homes were the provision of God that I speak of was abused by their parents.  But I think that in the same way that we as traditional Catholics look at the fruits of Vatican II, we must also carefully evaluate the fruits of other seeds that have been planted in the last 40 years since the cultural revolution of the 1960's. For being a traditional Catholic is much more than just adhering to the traditional Mass.

 

Pardon me while I seek shelter to avoid being hit by stones...

 

Peace be with you.

 

Christopher

No, I'm not against education, nor women working if they must

Unfortunately, this seems to be the case very often in modern economy. I come from Poland, a country in vastly different economical situation than USA or Western Europe, but probably one of the last bastions of Catholicism in Europe. In a discussion on family on one of the Polish Traditional Catholic forums it was pointed out that our Traditional Catholics often end up thinking like the rest of the world (and its hard to blame them in this case) - yes, they would like to have a big family with children raised by stay-at-home-mother, but the economy simply does not allow this, so they give up this model. It becomes pretty much impossible to provide for a family (let alone a big one) with one salary, especially if you are a young person who just married and entered a job market - as a result, a need for another salary becomes rule rather than exception, and it has nothing to do with women's desire for career. Unfortunately, this trend will probably increase, since the zero-hour contracts are becoming a plague even in as rich country as the United Kingdom, and the welfare system of the Western countries will collapse sooner rather than later.

Obviously we must not forget Mt 6:33 ("But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you"), but that does not mean we should take prudence out of equasion. We live in abnormal times of complete spiritual (and soon, if not already, economical) collapse, the material chastisements about which Our Blessed Mother warned us in Fatima and Akita seem to be inevitable, as mankind did not repent (on the contrary) and Russia remains unconsecrated. Unfortunately, in this situation it is more about spiritual and physical survival, while the possibilities of practising a normative model of Catholic family are more and more limited (which is one of the reasons I will probably never marry). I don't doubt in God's Providence, I just think humanity reaps what it has sown.  

So, I think we should not demonize the phenomenon of women working, rather make sure the institution of family preserves Catholic principles and mindset in increasingly more common case of necessity of both parents working.

No, I think we should demonize "women working". You can't just give in, as if it's as good as the ideal. Ideal is ideal, and against nature is against nature.

You might REFRAIN FROM STONING this or that woman who is forced to work, or REFRAIN FROM MAKING SNIDE COMMENTS AT MASS, or be on speaking terms with such women. But consider it 100% OK? As good as women staying at home? Of course not.

Obviously we agree on this, we all know what the Sacred Scripture and Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii teach on this matter. What I am saying is that because of ab-normal social and economical conditions we have today women are more and more often forced to work since one salary becomes insufficient to support a family (especially being Traditional Catholic, which means your family will be large), especially in economic reality of a country like mine (but, as I pointed out, it will increase in the West too). Thus, I think in current situation it is an oversimplification to say that woman working = career woman. In many cases it is certainly true, but more and more often it is a sad necessity and it is important to keep this distinction in mind, since the case of woman being forced to work to sustain a family becomes rule rather than exception. This is what I mean by not demonizing women working (not broad-brushing them as "career women").    

Blame for this reprehensible condition can be laid squarely at the feet of the unholy union of those two not-so-strange bedfellows - Capitalism and Feminism. In a few short decades, women flooded the workplace and, with that, the value of the working man's labor was cut in half, and women the world over began to take a very dim view of their Divinely ordained roles of wife and mother and sought to usurp the duties and dignities of their husbands. "Socially conservative" libertarians and free marketeers take note - this abominable state of affairs is what happens when you "laissez faire."

I am not aware of any Western country where real Capitalism and free market exist at the moment, certainly not USA nor European Union - both are socialist and run by socialists, which is why they are or will go bankrupt. I remember Bishop Sanborn's article in which he indentified socialism as the greatest economical threat to western countries today (including USA), not to mention condemnation of this system by Pope Leo XIII.

Quote from: BTNYC

Blame for this reprehensible condition can be laid squarely at the feet of the unholy union of those two not-so-strange bedfellows - Capitalism and Feminism. In a few short decades, women flooded the workplace and, with that, the value of the working man's labor was cut in half, and women the world over began to take a very dim view of their Divinely ordained roles of wife and mother and sought to usurp the duties and dignities of their husbands. "Socially conservative" libertarians and free marketeers take note - this abominable state of affairs is what happens when you "laissez faire."

I am not aware of any Western country where real Capitalism and free market exist at the moment, certainly not USA nor European Union - both are socialist and run by socialists, which is why they are or will go bankrupt. I remember Bishop Sanborn's article in which he indentified socialism as the greatest economical threat to western countries today (including USA), not to mention condemnation of this system by Pope Leo XIII.

"Real Capitalism" doesn't exist because it can't - except in theory / libertarian utopian sloganeering. Because "the Market" is not some Newtonian "law," but a real place where real, fallen human beings interact, indulge their avarice, and exploit other, weaker human beings in the process, "genuine" capitalism of the "laissez faire" variety, when it is allowed to exist, naturally engenders all manner of evil and abuse (dangerous working conditions, slave wages, children and women performing heavy manual labor, etc.). A godless society that subscribes to a godless, materialistic Capitalist model naturally seeks an equally godless, materialistic cure to that model's concomitant evils - namely, Socialism. This is the vicious cycle described by Belloc in The Servile State - the more "real Capitalism" is indulged in, the more it will paradoxically but inexorably lead to Socialism; the more the State "leaves it alone," the more it will have to step in to interfere. As E Michael Jones puts it, "Socialism is the pus that forms when the body politic is infected by Capitalism."

This kind of madness is hardly surprising when one recognizes these economic theories for what they are - atheistic, materialistic "enlightenment" pablum. They are flawed in their very foundations because they ignore or deny the role morality must have in the economic life of a nation, and ignore or deny the very purpose of an economy as a stabilizing infrastructure meant to promote societal harmony and public good - the greatest public good being the adoration of Almighty God and the practice of virtue. A truly Just State - which is to say, a Catholic State - would not "let it (the Market) be." It would impose regulations that would prevent men from indulging in immoral acts in their economic dealings - immoral acts like employing women to do work suited to men, and defrauding the laboring man of his wages (which is, last time I checked, one of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance) by cutting its value in half.

It never hurts to give this another plug:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm

This article/blog posting touches on some things I have been thinking about lately. I agree that women should be inclined to stay at home and raise the children. There are some obvious reasons as to why they shouldn't be taking up careers. Especially at the rate that they are...

1) It makes it more difficult for men to go out and find better paying jobs (in order to raise a family) when women are taking them up. Gender role's become blurred because of this.

2) Women are not at home as much to nurture the children. The children then suffer because of it whether they realize it or not.

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.

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? Should the wife's opinions have any sway in the relationship? Should there be any negotiation at all in the relationship, and to what extent?

I do think the man should be in control of the relationship overall. I just can't figure out if it should be 100% of the time or 51% or somewhere in between. I was raised in the liberal mindset where there is equality in a relationship between men and women so I have never had a measure to go by. As I have grown older I have learned many things, and I am starting to see it the traditional way more so.