Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Women Burned Out At 30!
Topic Started: Friday, 28. September 2007, 13:09 (2,048 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 12:32 PM
The married man with dependant children is the exception, not the norm.

And those things which are now normal never were, and the exception never used to be the exception.

Why have things changed?

Because of social engineering. The breakdown of the family. Easy divorce. Feminism.

The norm today is not the norm overall.

The norm today is not God's will for mankind.



S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare you were the one who asked if women had choices in days gone by. For the purposes of this discussion, what happened in the past is irrelevant.

I've just thought, if some rotten sod hadn't shut the workhouses the women who want, and in many cases, get, equal pay would not have needed to earn a penny to support their families.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Oct 3 2007, 02:09 PM
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 12:32 PM
The married man with dependant children is the exception, not the norm.

And those things which are now normal never were, and the exception never used to be the exception.

Why have things changed?

Because of social engineering. The breakdown of the family. Easy divorce. Feminism.

Because most people used to be dead before they were fifty.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
K.T.B.

Clare, we are talking here about a basic Christian value, that of justice.

It is frankly unjust for any employer to award a different amount of money to any individual doing work of equal value to that of another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Katy B
Oct 3 2007, 02:58 PM
Clare, we are talking here about a basic Christian value, that of justice.

It is frankly unjust for any employer to award a different amount of money to any individual doing work of equal value to that of another.

Well, there was that parable about giving the labourer who only worked a short part of the day the same wage as someone who worked all day.

Some people get more than perhaps they deserve. As long as noone is getting less than they deserve there's no injustice.

There has been social engineering which has forced women out to work, because now many families need two incomes. That is not ideal.

It may be reality now. But it is not the ideal. It is a reality that has been engineered to undermine the family and society.

And it is succeeding. It's just disappointing to see Catholics pouring scorn on the ideal, and praising the perverted status quo. It's an evil, that we have to put up with. But we don't have to defend it!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 02:14 PM
Because most people used to be dead before they were fifty.

Yes, and go back even further and most people lived to be several hundred years old.

And then God reduced it to 3 score years and 10. Which is still older than 50.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Oct 3 2007, 03:31 PM
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 02:14 PM
Because most people used to be dead before they were fifty.

Yes, and go back even further and most people lived to be several hundred years old.

And then God reduced it to 3 score years and 10. Which is still older than 50.

That explains why the majority of male workers are not financially responsible for dependant children.

On Victorian times, life expectancy was lowered by human activity due to industry being very dangerous, bad living conditions, and the new town workers not having land where they could grow food.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Oct 3 2007, 03:29 PM

There has been social engineering which has forced women out to work, because now many families need two incomes. That is not ideal.

It may be reality now. But it is not the ideal. It is a reality that has been engineered to undermine the family and society.

And it is succeeding. It's just disappointing to see Catholics pouring scorn on the ideal, and praising the perverted status quo. It's an evil, that we have to put up with. But we don't have to defend it!





Clare, I quote below the comments of working mothers who posted on this discussion. There is no scorn of the ideal. Every one of us wanted to stay at home full time with our children. I hope you do not think we praise the "perverted status quo" as you put it. Karin, who has no children, is married. She has always worked, out of necessity. Mothers whose husbands earn enough to support families, single handed, are the lucky ones. So are their children, having their mothers at home full time. We working mothers suffered emotionally, having to leave our children with other people so we could earn a crust.



nelly k
Oct 1 2007, 10:57 PM
Iam a generally happy burned out woman, in my 40`s so was my Gran, and a few other women of her era and my Mothers... .
My Granny had 6 children one died in infancy one died as a toddeler, her Mum died and her Dad stayed with her the children and my Grandad... yes she was burnt out, what`s new... just work has changed but we all work in some shape or form... would I like to have been a full time Mum and Houswife, yes... but I aint rich enough...
nelly

Rose of York
Sep 30 2007, 11:33 PM
I was for long periods the sole breadwinner, out of necessity.  So did most of the women who post on this forum.
...............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

It broke my heart, collecting a child from nursery and being told "He ate his dinner by himself today, for the first time.  He didn't need any help at all".  It still hurts forty years on.

Please spare a thought for the vast majority of working mothers, stacking shelves, doing repetitive work on keyboards, taking the abuse at call centres, cleaning mens' toilets.  We are not all ardent feminist career women.

Emee
Sep 30 2007, 11:21 PM
I would dearly love to work part-time and fulfill my ambition to become a published author the rest of the week, but my husband's salary goes on the mortgage and utility bills.  I pay for all our food, clothes, shoes, various types of insurance and many household things.  Our house is not a large house.  It is a modest home with a postage stamp of a back garden.

.........................................................................................
...................................

I DO get tired.  Something has to give.  For me I had to give up watching TV so I could get my housework done in the evening (my husband often works away during the week but does help when he can).  Saturday is housework and shopping day.  Sunday is strictly Church and family day - that enables me to survive and gives me strength for the rest of the week.  I don't know where I would be without my faith and the Mass.  I always slow down and feel so much better on a Sunday.

However, I would still dearly love to work part-time, but unless I take my family to go to live in a tent or a cave, that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future...  :(

Mrs Jamie
Sep 30 2007, 07:17 PM
I wholly support the role women in nurturing their children. I breast fed all mine for months (too much information!) and was a full time mother for 12 years, then did a long period of part time work after that before returning full-time to the career I loved, had been trained for, and for which I have a God-given talent.

I am only a "feminist" in so far that I fail to see why oppressing women and denying them the same opportunities as men, makes for a kinder, happier or more just society.....


Rose of York
Sep 29 2007, 11:28 PM
For most women the first question is "How long can I continue to stay at home being a full time mother?".  The second and third questions are "As it is essential I get out and earn some money sooner or later, what is the best option? and "Where can I find a good childminder who will give a high standard of care for my child".

We live on Planet Earth, and we must be practical.  Voluntary poverty for oneself is one thing.  Inflicting it on one's children is not acceptable.  If a woman needs to work, she may as well do something she will find enjoyable and fulfilling, for an employer who shows consideration for family needs.  It is not easy being a working mother.

Mrs Jamie
Sep 29 2007, 05:53 PM
I loved being a full time mother to my three boys when they were small but I was also thrilled - really thrilled - when I was given the opportunity to return to work once they were all at school.

Clare
Oct 3 2007, 03:29 PM
It's just disappointing to see Catholics pouring scorn on the ideal, and praising the perverted status quo. It's an evil, that we have to put up with. But we don't have to defend it!
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Jamie

Clare
Oct 3 2007, 01:01 PM
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 12:10 PM
Clare
Oct 3 2007, 11:00 AM
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 10:11 AM
Who needs physical strength to get a job?  There are career choices.

Have there always been?

Yes, depending mainly on education, and opportunities (often determined at birth, depending on the status of the parents).

If they were "often determined" by some factor or other, they weren't choices.


Quote:
 
She did needlework, and with the fruit of her handywork she bough a field and planted a vineyard.

Women worked as teachers, nannies, secretaries, shop assistants and managers, cooks, maids and housekeepers in Victorian times.


Yes. But they didn't have "career choices" as we now know them. Neither did most men.

I'm sorry but I don't actually see the relevance of either of these points; the fact that in the past people had little or no choice about their employment is something to be deplored, not something to which we should aspire.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs Jamie

Clare
Oct 3 2007, 01:01 PM


Women worked as teachers, nannies, secretaries, shop assistants and managers, cooks, maids and housekeepers in Victorian times.


Yes. But they didn't have "career choices" as we now know them. Neither did most men. [/QUOTE]
I think we have now come the nub of Clare's argument.

If you are "forced" into employment which is poorly paid and uncongenial that is okay,

If you are fortunate enough to find enjoyable and fulfilling work for fair recompense, that is "against God's ideal".

So it is okay to be sent down mines, up chimneys or to work in a brothel - or anywhere else where you will be thoroughly miserable.

But find yourself a "profession" and you are failing as a woman and a mother.

Bizarre!

(Now Rose - remind me how the parable of the talents went......)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Mrs Jamie
Oct 3 2007, 05:38 PM
(Now Rose - remind me how the parable of the talents went......)

No Mrs Jamie, I put your points and you put yours.

A mother makes excellent use of her talents, teaching her children. The journalist is off to a flying start, helping her children to express themselves well. A mother who looks after the garden can show her children the wonders of God's creation, by explaining how plants develop, and demonstrating the interdependence of flora and fauna.

Staying at home to care for children does not have to result in wasting talents and/or education.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD


“It is a reality that has been engineered to undermine the family and society”

Rather Clare to boost Company profits – the family just got in the way.

Mothers do suffer emotionally as a result.

Years ago, when there were a reasonable amount of jobs around, men worked full time and made up for any shortfall by doing overtime usually on Sat. mornings. Wives with children generally did not have to go out to work. The system worked; but you had to save up or borrow to get a Hoover twin tub etc – or you had to wait! Today advertisement means waiting is a greater pain and against ‘the Joans’s’; and so we go on - with children having to keep up with their own child Joans’s. My grandchildren sometimes a party [and always a gift to buy] about once every fortnight. Sad all of this. And now they (or an American) is talking about retirement age being substantially well over 65 – smokers are living too long and draining the pension funds whilst the obese are not living long enough and surviving to pay work their share of years (joke).

PJD

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mrs Jamie
Oct 3 2007, 05:38 PM
I think we have now come the nub of Clare's argument.

If you are "forced" into employment which is poorly paid and uncongenial that is okay,

If you are fortunate enough to find enjoyable and fulfilling work for fair recompense, that is "against God's ideal".

So it is okay to be sent down mines, up chimneys or to work in a brothel - or anywhere else where you will be thoroughly miserable.

But find yourself a "profession" and you are failing as a woman and a mother.

Bizarre!

No, Mrs J. That is a caricature.

It's not what I meant at all.

My point was that women have choices, and act as if they're something men always had, whereas most men didn't.

This men v women dichotomy is false.

It's more a rich v poor thing.

And women generally only want the nice jobs men do.

Nice jobs are "careers". And it only seems to be fulfilling and rewarding jobs that women are interested in. The men can have the rest!

Clare.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Oct 3 2007, 06:26 PM
Staying at home to care for children does not have to result in wasting talents and/or education.

Quite.

There are some traditionalists who think that girls shouldn't have a university education. They also think mothers should home-school. Something for which a university education would be quite advantageous, I would have thought!

I don't have one though.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mrs Jamie
Oct 3 2007, 05:27 PM
I'm sorry but I don't actually see the relevance of either of these points; the fact that in the past people had little or no choice about their employment is something to be deplored, not something to which we should aspire.

The point is that modern women are aspiring to something most men never had! As if there had been this unfairness: Men have career choices, why can't we?

Well. Most men didn't.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply