Liberating Motherhood

[SolomonVII]

I think the whole point of Bene's post was that that was exactly what she was trying to do.

Seriously, Solomon, if this is the sort of posts you start making then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread anymore.

YOu have been answered in full Antigone.
Fat lot of good it did.
You are a non-serious poster, always have been.
You have nothing of value to offer except mocking and derision for those who share your values against those who don't.

 

[Meepy]

Divorce rates say little about how marriages worked. Divorce used to be a lot harder to obtain. Just because there was less of it doesn't mean marriages were any better.

I'm proud to have the choice to stay home with my family rather than being forced to do it. Most of all because I know for sure that being stuck at home would drive me nuts. I think I'd be a better mom if I could get out of the house a few days a week. And no, that's not me being selfish, that's me being realistic. To say that I should just stay home diminishes the value of my job. I like to think that what I do at work has some value.

This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: - physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family. - Pope Pius XI "On Christian Marriage"

Pope Pius XI not only condemns the ideal of putting work over motherhood, but calls it an actual crime.


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. As a general principle it may be laid down that a workman ought to have leisure and rest proportionate to the wear and tear of his strength, for waste of strength must be repaired by cessation from hard work. - Pope Leo XIII 'Rerum Novarum'



Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs. - Pope Pius XI "quadragesimo anno"

 

[Antigone]

YOu have been answered in full Antigone.
Fat lot of good it did.
You are a non-serious poster, always have been.
You have nothing of value to offer except mocking and derision for those who share your values against those who don't.

And I keep telling you I'm serious this time and I don't understand what you are saying.

No mockery, complete honesty.

And frankly speaking, I'm getting a bit tired of you using this as an excuse, seeing as how you go around telling people to 'get a freaking life'. Yes, that's a very mature and not at all condescending response.

 

[Antigone]

Meepy - Pope Pius XI died in 1939. Society has changed since then. As I told you before, my boyfriend actually wants to spend time with the kids when we have them and we couldn't afford running a household on one income. I have a valuable job and I feel I would be a better mom if I got out of the house a couple of days a week when my boyfriend would take over.

I fail to see how that makes us bad people.

 

[SolomonVII]

And I keep telling you I'm serious this time and I don't understand what you are saying.

No mockery, complete honesty.

And frankly speaking, I'm getting a bit tired of you using this as an excuse, seeing as how you go around telling people to 'get a freaking life'. Yes, that's a very mature and not at all condescending response.

I am deeply resentful of all the women here, save Brikkz, who have been accusing me of saying things I never said, interpreting me as saying something that I never said or meant, making ludicrous assertions about what I might actually mean instead of taking the plain meaning of the words, and constantly assuming that I mean something other than what was written, not even bothering to read the links I provided that would explain where I am coming from.

I am not dealing with stupid or illeterate people. That cannot be the explanation.

The best explanation for such mean and spiteful people and such hatred toward me is that you are in a hell of a lot of pain—a hellish existence.

 

[benedictaoo]

My boyfriend and I were talking about this the other day. If we ever have children together we're both planning on working part-time. For financial reasons - we both have an okay income, but not enough for one of us to support the other and a family completely - but because my boyfriend wants to be a part of raising our children too. I remember when I was younger I had a rather distant relationship with my dad because he was at his work all the time (it turned out okay, but it's kind of hard to bond with your dad when he gets home around half past six and you have to go to bed around seven). I'd like my children to have a better bond with their father.

Besides which, if either of us stayed home for half a decade or more, it would be hard for us to get back on the market because we'd have missed the developments in the field, we'd be out of touch.

and you would still be a mother fulfilling her role.

 

[Meepy]

Meepy - Pope Pius XI died in 1939. Society has changed since then. As I told you before, my boyfriend actually wants to spend time with the kids when we have them and we couldn't afford running a household on one income. I have a valuable job and I feel I would be a better mom if I got out of the house a couple of days a week when my boyfriend would take over.

I fail to see how that makes us bad people.

That was one of the main reasons why I posted my minimum wage OP. That men with families should receive a living family wage that is based on the basic family needs(food, children, wife, shelter, heat, health, etc)

It is an injustice for a mother to have to go out and work while she has kids to take care of because the father does not earn enough to support them. That's why the Church supports a living family wage. It is an injustice where a mother is forced to work without any choice and has to leave their children alone. That is also why Pope John Paul II, in my other OP, brought up the ideal of society and government helping stay as home mothers.

The feminist movement has really hurt the stay at home mother. Economically, spiritually, and family wise. They also hurt a large number of men with families by flooding the work market, which lowered wages and overflowed job positions

And Pope Pius XI words are just as important then as they are now. It is almost as if he predicted what would happen in that encyclical later on. Its very prophetic.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Stop being self-righteous, Solomon. If you had explained yourself clearly instead of going in circles and making personal attacks, we wouldn't be having this problem. Our posts have been responses to some of what you have said, with some of our own things that we felt we needed to say. You have been taking our own opinions as attacks against you when really... we just wanted to say something in order to explain our point of view.

If you are feeling resentful toward people on the internet, it may be an indication that you just need to shut the computer down and walk away for awhile.

Now, regarding the issue of fathers working and mothers staying home: my father worked a lot when I was young. He was often gone away on business trips for weeks at a time. He was not home very often. Though that may be a more "traditional" arrangement, with my father working and my mother home with my brothers and I, it was detrimental because my father was rarely around. If there were some sort of situation wherein both parents could spend an equal amount of time bonding with the children, that would be ideal - children need to be nurtured by both parents if possible. I will say that for me personally, if both my parents had worked, I wouldn't have turned out so well. I'm lucky that my mother stayed home, even if it was very hard for her to essentially raise the kids on her own. -/

 

[SolomonVII]

That was one of the main reasons why I posted my minimum wage OP. That men with families should receive a living family wage that is based on the basic family needs(food, children, wife, shelter, heat, health, etc)

It is an injustice for a mother to have to go out and work while she has kids to take care of because the father does not earn enough to support them. That's why the Church supports a living family wage. It is an injustice where a mother is forced to work without any choice and has to leave their children alone. That is also why Pope John Paul II, in my other OP, brought up the ideal of society and government helping stay as home mothers.

The feminist movement has really hurt the stay at home mother. Economically, spiritually, and family wise. They also hurt a large number of men with families by flooding the work market, which lowered wages and overflowed job positions

And Pope Pius XI words are just as important then as they are now. It is almost as if he predicted what would happen in that encyclical later on. Its very prophetic.

Those days are gone. The only ones I know who are doing that are financially well enough off that they can.
For the rest of us, we all answer to the man now. There is just that much less of our lives in the private sphere.
You learn how to juggle, and do what needs to be done.

Something lost, something gained. Many more are not even bothering.

 

[Rebekka]

As opposed to what?
Test tube babies or something?

What did you have in mind?

Are you trying to make sense or not?

You presented the cliché of women needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle and not being open to life as one issue, as basically the same thing. I see it as two issues. Maybe this is not what you meant. If it's not, then please be clearer.

I don't know what the test tube babies have to do with it, so if you explained that, too, I'd be grateful.

 

[Rebekka]

I don't know why you keep equating feminism with women who do not have children.

I haven't caught up with this thread yet so I don't know if this has been addressed already, but Solomon, this is what I thought too, when you made the fish/bicycle and open to life comment.

My question is: do feminists have children?

And I will answer it, too, as it is a rhetorical question: yes they do! Most women* have kids, including feminists. Having or not having kids is one issue, feminism is another. In some cases there's a connection, in others there isn't.





*actually I don't like to keep the fathers out of statistics, so it's better to say "most people have kids". Everyone has one father and one mother.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I haven't caught up with this thread yet so I don't know if this has been addressed already, but Solomon, this is what I thought too, when you made the fish/bicycle and open to life comment.

My question is: do feminists have children?

And I will answer it, too, as it is a rhetorical question: yes they do! Most women* have kids, including feminists. Having or not having kids is one issue, feminism is another. In some cases there's a connection, in others there isn't.


*actually I don't like to keep the fathers out of statistics, so it's better to say "most people have kids". Everyone has one father and one mother.

Yes, this is what confused me, too. I was trying to say that women not having children due to infertility/sterility/etc. and being okay with it (as well as choosing to have a fulfilling career) is not the same thing as a feminist who rejects male patriarchy and oppression by refusing to procreate because she feels it to be slavery. Women not having children in my scenario is not a result of their disregard for men or of a hatred for traditional gender roles.

 

[benedictaoo]

Meep, first I'm not a feminist, never have been and never will be, so don't even try to pull that junk with me.

This is not a either /or thing. Its both & and. There is nothing wrong with the traditional role of motherhood and I'm not anti the motherhood role but what I am against is a women not also, in addition to, not having something to fall back on just in case the man turns out to be an idiot.

Next,

you realize the breaking up of families increased greatly after the independent woman ideal of feminism came up.

Nope. I don't realize that.

What I realize is women have to have a way to take care of themselves if the man should leave.

You disagree? That the big alpha men DO leave their wives, even if they are the "good" Christian if they think the wife has not done her "job" to make him happy?

You do know that happens in the real world, right? Not some idealistic principle but the real world.

So please, lets be able to separate the ideal from the reality of the fallen world in which we live.

Feminists pushed for no fault divorce and abortion.

So what?

Divorce and breaking up families were very rare earlier on.

Be that as it may- how does that negate what I said before?

Women who do stay married and raise a bunch of kids, who played the devoted wife and the ever fulling role of mother to a bunch of needy ppl, one day when the kids are grown, she realizes she neglected herslef in the process. She doesn't know who she is outside of her "role".

Is this really radical feminist crazy talk or is it normal? Its normal for a mother and wife who spent 30 years taking care of her family to neglect herself where even her heath was being neglected.

Listen and listen to me good becuase I think you are newly married, a man has a obligation to make sure his wife is being care for as well.

If you begin to have kids, make sure your wife also is putting herself on the list of who gets needs met or you will one day have a hot mess on your hands when she gives all of herslef and she's just spent.

So men leaving or families breaking up can be blamed greatly on the change of family values that were pushed on by these feminist revolutionaries. All you have to do is look at a divorce rate graph.

What ever- I don't care what you chalk it up to, the reasons why- who cares?

You admit men walk out becuase the wife is not what she is supposed to be. what ever, you can now understand why she needs to be able to support herslef if he should leave? She HAS to be able to care for herself.

So I guess you are saying if your wife does not stay in this idealistic fantasy you have created for you both based on charts and graphs, and she actually does feel like she is not getting what she needs and tries to talk to you about it and you shut her down right away, claiming she is a miserable women that you pity, you feel you have the right to leave her.

What ever, I'm not judging for that, leave her if you want, however, if she played it your way and you feel justified for what ever reason, when leave her, if she never worked, she's pretty much screwed, right?

And not that I think you would worry about her afterwards, but she will need to provide for her and what ever kids y'all have, so she needs to be able to take care of herslef.

Men figure today ,"well your soo independent now, you can go do it yourself and should have no problems". Rather than thinking "I could never leave my wife to suffer like that"

Chivalry. That is the issue. Feminism killed it.

You can pass the buck if you want... but men should own their part in the feminist movement. They provoked it Meep.

If they had not been such jerks through the ages, there would not have been this movement.

I've seen where "Catholic" men filled with chivalry, when they feel betrayed by a wife who stayed home with the kids for 25 years, if they feel she did something to them, they will want to punish her by leaving her with nothing.

Its to teach her a lesson, that she should have kept him happy and satisfied. She should have never bit the hand that fed her.

I have seen it Meepy so you can not argue with me about it.

This "traditional" man really does think like this. and he will have his own kids suffer financial hardship becuase he knows it further hurts the women. Men do try to punish women who they think did him something.

You can't have it both ways. You can't expect men to take care of their wives properly when society is bashing it into their heads that women should be fully independent and that they don't have to rely on a man anymore. And it is said with such hatred and animosity as if a wife relying on her husband is such a horrid subjecting thing. And with that horrid attitude it justifies men to treat their wives as just another independent workmate who should have no problem if he ever leaves. It justifies men to leave their families with a good conscience.

all the more reason she needs to be able to survive if he should leave.

Its not healthy for a man to hold all the cards.

You know this is what you are advocating, a women being in the position where if she doesn't kiss his ___ she can't survive.

That ought to make for a real happy marriage.

Of course then they demand child support. As if the independent ideal all of a sudden fizzles into the air.

The more the post goes on, the more you are kinda proving my point.

I'm not a feminist Meepy, Just a realist.

I stay home with my children and I believe in it and its importance, but I have a skill and I never burned my bridges, I can go to work if I have to.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

you realize the breaking up of families increased greatly after the independent woman ideal of feminism came up. Feminists pushed for no fault divorce and abortion. Divorce and breaking up families were very rare earlier on. So men leaving or families breaking up can be blamed greatly on the change of family values that were pushed on by these feminist revolutionaries. All you have to do is look at a divorce rate graph.

Men figure today ,"well your soo independent now, you can go do it yourself and should have no problems". Rather than thinking "I could never leave my wife to suffer like that"

Chivalry. That is the issue. Feminism killed it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't expect men to take care of their wives properly when society is bashing it into their heads that women should be fully independent and that they don't have to rely on a man anymore. And it is said with such hatred and animosity as if a wife relying on her husband is such a horrid subjecting thing. And with that horrid attitude it justifies men to treat their wives as just another independent workmate who should have no problem if he ever leaves. It justifies men to leave their families with a good conscience.

Of course then they demand child support. As if the independent ideal all of a sudden fizzles into the air.

Yes... because everything was perfect when women were trapped in loveless, even abusive, marriages because there was no possible means for them to support themselves and their children if they left. Good times!

 

[SolomonVII]

Are you trying to make sense or not?

You presented the cliché of women needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle and not being open to life as one issue, as basically the same thing. I see it as two issues. Maybe this is not what you meant. If it's not, then please be clearer.

I don't know what the test tube babies have to do with it, so if you explained that, too, I'd be grateful.

I was just unclear how you might want to go about doing the wild thing to make babies, if men are unnecessary.
You know make babies...open to life...
I just wanted a little more information about what you were trying to say.

But I know now that was expecting too much.

 

[benedictaoo]

I really hope you don't take that anger out on your husband.

I B---- slap him every night. It keeps in him line. I don't like a mouthy husband. (j/k)

now now. Lets not throw the blame card. Both men and women caused this. Societal changes and revolutionaries. The women who supported the revolutionary movement and the men who supported it. A large number of judges where men who signed things like no-fault divorce and abortion into existence, even though they were pressured on by feminists.

Remember in most of european history divorce was very rare. Around 5-7%. It only skyrocketed after the feminist revolutionary movement after the 50s. If you want someone to blame, look closely at this era and the people protesting and holding the signs outside congress.

Women get screwed by divorce lawyers and judges still in this day and age. A judge feels that if she is able bodied even if she never worked in her life, he will conclude she is at least able to get a min wage job and will based any child support on what she can potentially earn.

If the feminist were "smart" they would ditch no fault divorce. Its becuase of no fault a women can not get what she is entitled to.

But I'm going to guess that you feel if there is a divorce and the wife DID stay home with the kids, she still isn't entitled to child support or alimony? right?

She's darned if she does, darned if she doesn't.

If a women was never meant to work but to rear children, why would you object to paying her child support and alimony after you left? It makes no sense.

You are going against your own argument and will have to admit that what you really mean is, a women's role in life is to keep men happy and kiss his butt and like it. This is what is freeing and fulfilling in your mind.

and she may be so deluded, she plays along for a while but one day- when you least expect it- watch it, she wakes up and wants to know what happened to her life, is this really all there is? Kissing a man's butt and taking care of kids? She may love the man and of course she loves her kids, but its not all the time as filling as you want to delude yourself into believing.

and compassion for her at that point from a man- what' thats? All I'm advocating here is compassion for a women and she the way she may feel from time to time during her life as she fufills this role.

You see, its not what you think.

I believe in stay at home women but until men are willing to still support her after he leaves her, she has to be able to support herself, right?

So you point is kinda a contradiction, you go against your own argument.

You want her home, pregnant and illiterate but yet if you leave her, you don't want to still care for her.

So either she dies on the streets with kids in tow (yeah Meepy, real Christian there) or she made certain she can care for herslef and her kids if it ever did come to that.

I do not know why you would deny her this ability.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I was just unclear how you might want to go about doing the wild thing to make babies, if men are unnecessary.
You know make babies...open to life...
I just wanted a little more information about what you were trying to say.

But I know now that was expecting too much.

How do you make the jump from "women should be able to make their own decisions about career and homelife" to "feminists think they don't need men to make babies"?

 

[Gwendolyn]

I'm kind of confused - do men want wives who are totally dependent upon them? I'm just curious, because Meepy's comments suggest that perhaps that is the ideal woman for a man - one who relies on him to support her (among other things). Do men only feel loved if they feel secure that a woman needs them to live?

 

[benedictaoo]

Miserable existence, yours


Not preaching to anyone. Just commenting on the OP, as is my right.


Irrelevant to anything I have posted.


Irrelevant to anything I have posted.


You don't know anythign about me. You obviously don't even read my posts.
How do you know what I am or an not doing?



Then get off my freakin case.


Irrelevant to anything I have posted.

Nope.

Irrelevant to anything I have posted.

Like I say, what a miserable, joylss life you all must lead.
Hellish existence for women, it is, 40 years into the Feminist Revolution.
I can't imagine any women in the rest of the world being as unhappy as western women are ner feminism.

Solomon, let say for the sake of argument I'm miserable as you say.

Don't you think I began happy go lucky, thinking motherhood was all that and some chips and dip?

If I somewhere along the line began to feel miserable...

what do you think happened perhaps?

Was I just sitting there minding my business and all of a sudden I just felt miserable for no reason?

Or is there a underlying reason?

and if that underlying reason is I neglected myself and now I do not know who I am . I am the mother and I am the wife but what defines me outside of that?

You really think that crazy feminisim?

adn I want you to stand corrected. It was men who first defied marriage as slavery, not the feme-nazis.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

*snip*

I like the way how in Meepy and Solomon's world, all divorces are instigated by the woman. Husbands never leave the wife, its always the duplicitous ungrateful woman running off with the man's hard earned cash.

Am I out of line in suspecting that a harsh divorce settlement migh loom large in certain poster's personal backgrounds?