Is it time for the women to go home?

Brer Fox

A report shows that the number of stay at home moms has plummeted.

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2242

The number of Irish women staying at home to raise their children has been dropping steadily, at a rate of about 10,000 per year, a new study shows.

The latest Irish census found 230,645 married women working in their homes, a drop of nearly 13% since the previous census in 2006. That decline occurred despite a jump in the unemployment rate, which should theoretically have left more women at home. In 1986, the census showed 653,398 Irish women caring for their children at home.

Where I live, there are twice as many unemployed men as women.

I think women should do the decent thing and stay at home and look after the children. I think this is the Christian thing to do, because God wants:

1. Men to work - it says so in the New Testament - no work, no food.
2. Women to look after the kids.
3. The sexes have their separate and unique roles and we shouldn't confuse them.

Men and women need to be open to the commitment of marriage and stop shacking up together. More men in employment would mean more men fit for marriage because they'd meet one important criteria - to be able to provide for a wife and kids. With all the women in the jobs, the men can't get their foot in the door of many workplaces.

I think that we Christians need to put our money where our mouth is, and start living as we should. This means women should gradually pull out of the traditionally male-dominated industries and give the men a chance. They can stay on in cooking, some teaching roles, and nursing etc... but leave the men's work to the men, because right now, they are squeezing the men out and this may well cause some big problems in the future, what with large numbers of unemployed and frustrated men. This is a natural consequence of the unnatural entry of women into men's work. No good can come of it, as that Iona report clearly shows.

Women entering the workplace to be the equal of men has been very bad for the men and their family, as well as having a very bad effect on young men who can't get a job.

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

You have to be trolling ....

Darkglasses

I'm revolted by your opinion if you aren't trolling.

Sindri

Brer Fox wrote: »

This is a natural consequence of the unnatural entry of women into men's work. No good can come of it.

What about the natural economic benefits of women working? Or the empowerment and employment of women that reduces poverty in developing countries? Is that not good?

georgieporgy

"Get the women out of the home and into the workplace. Liberate them!"


"Russia will spread it's errors throughout the world"

(one thing I liked about Marx was his fine mane of hair. I guess a person can't be all bad)

qrrgprgua

Hmmm Brer Fox.. As a conservative Catholic here I could not disagree more this your thread.

My Mother stayed at home all her life, was an amazing mother. But would have liked to have had greater opportunities. Gone to university and had a Career.

What is needed is Balance. My wife and I both work. But we don't have baby sitters or child care. I work come home and then she does some part time. We both spend plenty of time with the kids.

Sometimes work outside the house can be an outlet for a women, Chance to get away from the house and kids and to socialise with other people.

Its all about Balance.. I know lots of Men too focused on their "Careers" constantly working late hours and travelling. The kids only see him weekends.

I would never say "A woman's place is in the home" ... Its a parents job to raise their children.

We moved house to be close to our jobs. Both of us are 10 mins from our employment. I work 08:30 to 17:00 my wife 18:00 to 22:00.

philologos

The Bible doesn't say that it is exclusively the place of the woman to be at home.

I grew up in a family with both parents working, and it worked out great actually. Whereas I know other people who did have their mothers at home, and they also grew up fine. It's a clear choice that people have to make.

Where does the Bible say that this is the way we should be living? - Arguably if we had more Christian women in the work place this could be a good opportunity for telling colleagues about the Gospel?

mockingjay

I totally disagree with you're post. It took many Irish women years post deValera to re-enter the workforce, and as such gave women independence from sometimes abusive relationships and dire circumstances. I think it's appalling that you would like to see us return to the dark ages after all we have achieved through education etc. Have to agree with aspects of Cherie Blairs comments on this one, however please note I added some points from Charlotte Vere to counter balance the argument, as I agree it should be a personal choice to stay at home.

Cherie Blair yesterday launched an astonishing attack on stay-at-home mothers, warning that it was ‘dangerous’ for women to rely on their husbands. Mrs Blair went on to criticise ‘yummy mummies’ who marry rich men and put their energies into raising children rather than concentrating on their careers. The wife of former Labour prime minister Tony Blair also declared that every woman should learn to be ‘self-sufficient’ in case their partner leaves them or drops dead.

Mrs Blair told the audience: ‘One of the things that worries me now is you see young women who say, “I look at the sacrifices that women have made and I think why do I need to bother, why can’t I just marry a rich husband and retire?” and you think, how can they even imagine that is the way to fulfil yourself, how dangerous it is. In my case I saw my mother abandoned by my father when I was eight – but even good men could have an accident or die and you’re left holding the baby…’

Mrs Blair went on to suggest that children who are brought up by working mothers are more likely to be independent. She said: ‘Every woman needs to be self-sufficient and in that way you really don’t have a choice – for your own satisfaction; you hear these yummy mummies talk about being the best possible mother and they put all their effort into their children. I also want to be the best possible mother, but I know that my job as a mother includes bringing my children up so actually they can live without me.’

Mrs Blair also backed quotas for women on the boards of businesses saying that firms needed a ‘kick up the pants’. ‘Whether you call it a target or a quota, what you are actually talking about is better diversity and getting more women on to the boards of businesses,’ she said.

Charlotte Vere, founder of the campaign group Women On… criticised Mrs Blair for ‘bullying’ women who chose to stay at home with their children. She said: ‘On one hand, Cherie Blair backs quotas for women, reinforcing the ridiculous idea that women can’t get to the top on merit. On the other, millionaire Cherie claims that stay-at-home mums must go out to work to feel “satisfied”. One more example of a driven and powerful woman expecting everyone else to be like her. Millions of mums and dads just want to make a choice as a grown-up, and if that means one decides to stay at home for a while, being made to feel guilty and bullied by a wealthy barrister isn't helpful.

Hope I haven't gone off topic here but once women return to the home we lose our independence (unless you're independently wealthy of course).

gimmebroadband

I think mothers (and I'm a mother) should stay at home and raise their children during their early years, at least until they are at school, then they could work during the school hours.

qrrgprgua

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I think mothers (and I'm a mother) should stay at home and raise their children during their early years, at least until they are at school, then they could work during the school hours.

Problem is if you have a job,,, its not easy to leave it and go back to that Job,, You loose service. A lot of employers won't give you 4 years off work. Maybe one.

Then after you have been out of the workforce it can take years to go back.

But I agree, its crazy to work if your kids are under 4. Childcare is too expensive. Practically you are working to pay someone else to look after your kids. We all know it. But what choice do you have? Unless you a highly qualified and could return to work no problem.

What I have seen a lot of women do in my workplace is to go part time work 20 hours a week. So 2 women job share the same job. Company pays for one person, but gets 2. each other looks after the others kids. So no childcare. Works well, more time with kids, less cost, Staying in workplace.

Onesimus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I think mothers (and I'm a mother) should stay at home and raise their children during their early years, at least until they are at school, then they could work during the school hours.

Yes it gives them more time to clean the house and do some shopping:D:p:pac:

I feel for Q a few posts up. Unfortunately ( unknown to himself ) he is trying to justify two parents working instead of agreeing with the obvious truth that a womans place is in the home. But thing is that the whole women in the workforce is the norm now and the economy is already ruined. so it's difficult for those families like Q to bring home the bread so I can understand both sexes having to go out and work. But that doesnt mean I have to agree with it.

Marx got his way didn't he?

I know someone whose parents both worked all their life and left them with nannys. The nannys abused them down through the years, and their relationship with their parents in their own words was ''I do not know them, they are like two business people that do not speak to us as parents but as 'Bosses' and there is no connection between us and them as parents because we never saw them.''

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

I know someone whose parents both worked all their life and left them with nannys. The nannys abused them down through the years, and their relationship with their parents in their own words was ''I do not know them, they are like two business people that do not speak to us as parents but as 'Bosses' and there is no connection between us and them as parents because we never saw them.''

This is ridiculous logic. Some nannys abuse therefore all abuse? That's called a logical fallacy.

One could argue that even if ones mother stays at home, some mothers abuse their children, is it true that all mothers abuse their children?

Onesimus wrote: »

Marx got his way didn't he?

Yeah, I guess we are living in a radical socialist world. Right?

Onesimus wrote: »

I feel for Q a few posts up. Unfortunately ( unknown to himself ) he is trying to justify two parents working instead of agreeing with the obvious truth that a womans place is in the home. But thing is that the whole women in the workforce is the norm now and the economy is already ruined. so it's difficult for those families like Q to bring home the bread so I can understand both sexes having to go out and work. But that doesnt mean I have to agree with it.

Why is it obvious?

I hope we can get into a discussion about this. I'm curious as to why you hold the position you do.

El_Duderino 09

Totally agree Brer. Ever since the suffrage movement women have got some power and we should go back to a time when men had all the power and not just most of it.

If you are going to let women stay on in certain roles can I suggest that that in addition to cooking cleaning and teaching, they could also take on menial jobs like bin collector and check out person. Just as long as they cant be proud, earn enough money to enjoy themselves or have any power or authority what soever.

Keeping women out of jobs where they can have any influence on policy or decision making is also important. Lets not even discuss women in politics. A world comprised of two sexes should have all the important decisions made by one of the sexes. Its the only way to keep a balance and natural order you see.

As a matter of interest are you married, a parent, or in employment?

Guessing by your post I would say that you are none of, married, a parent, in employment, nor do you have any experience of what you are talking about. On the other hand you don't let that stop you from being totally convinced in your correctness. Have you ever considered becoming a priest?

Sonics2k

Absolutely not.

Every person should be able to work if they wish, just as some mothers or fathers may be better suited to stay at home if they wish.

Absolutely crazy to think a young man in this day thinks that women should stay at home and be nothing more than a glorified house cleaner.

georgieporgy

Any ladies desiring to be homemakers, house proud, educators of tomorrow's leaders, etc., unfortunately have difficulty following their choice in today's harsh anti family climate.

For them it is often a great financial sacrifice to forego a second income for the sake of their children.

I'm a man and operate a small business with female employees. I allow them to bring their young kids to work so they can "mother" them there if they wish. One such child has been part of the furniture for over 6 years and is now almost a teenager.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

swiftblade

As a non-Catholic reading this thread, I have to say, it's actually pretty scary.

I can only pray hope that you are all amazing trolls...

Gumbi

"Because it says so" This is when I start to worry, quite a bit, actually.

Gillm

Brer Fox wrote: »

I think women should do the decent thing and stay at home and look after the children. I think this is the Christian thing to do, because God wants:

1. Men to work - it says so in the New Testament - no work, no food.
2. Women to look after the kids.
3. The sexes have their separate and unique roles and we shouldn't confuse them.

I think that we Christians need to put our money where our mouth is, and start living as we should. This means women should gradually pull out of the traditionally male-dominated industries and give the men a chance. They can stay on in cooking, some teaching roles, and nursing etc... but leave the men's work to the men, because right now, they are squeezing the men out and this may well cause some big problems in the future, what with large numbers of unemployed and frustrated men. This is a natural consequence of the unnatural entry of women into men's work. No good can come of it, as that Iona report job.

Thanks for this - you made me laugh out loud.

MrMojoRisin

Brer Fox wrote: »

With all the women in the jobs, the men can't get their foot in the door of many workplaces.

I think that we Christians need to put our money where our mouth is, and start living as we should. This means women should gradually pull out of the traditionally male-dominated industries and give the men a chance. They can stay on in cooking, some teaching roles, and nursing etc... but leave the men's work to the men, because right now, they are squeezing the men out and this may well cause some big problems in the future, what with large numbers of unemployed and frustrated men. This is a natural consequence of the unnatural entry of women into men's work. No good can come of it, as that Iona report clearly shows.

Women entering the workplace to be the equal of men has been very bad for the men and their family, as well as having a very bad effect on young men who can't get a job.

OP, you need to go back to God pronto.

homer911

Its worth noting that changes to the Tax System a few years ago (individualisation) meant that single income families lost out and it encouraged women back into the market place

Brer Fox

homer911 wrote: »

Its worth noting that changes to the Tax System a few years ago (individualisation) meant that single income families lost out and it encouraged women back into the market place

Exactly, this is about social engineering.

Marx wanted women in the workplace, and he wanted women to wear jeans, because they were unisex, and he wanted to blur the natural distinction between the genders.

I read somewhere last night that these feminists or equality experts are fixated on getting women into the boardroom, but instead might ask themselves why there are so many men unemployed. This is obviously because of the rise of women in the workplace.

I say get the women out. Women can marry a nice husband (whose wages would be bigger once the women are out of the workplace and there will also be more jobs) or else enter religious life. If they don't desire either, they may teach (I think there is a need for some women teachers), enter nursing or mid-wife areas, cook, clean, or else there would be a benefit for unemployed women, just to keep them ticking over.

Men are much more tied to feelings of self-identity with work roles, whereas women are not so vulnerable in this regard. Men need work; women like to work so they can be independent like men. A suitable benefit would keep them going while they find a nice husband, train for female work, or else discern their religious vocation.

swiftblade

Brer Fox wrote: »

Exactly, this is about social engineering.

Marx wanted women in the workplace, and he wanted women to wear jeans, because they were unisex, and he wanted to blur the natural distinction between the genders.

I read somewhere last night that these feminists or equality experts are fixated on getting women into the boardroom, but instead might ask themselves why there are so many men unemployed. This is obviously because of the rise of women in the workplace.

I say get the women out. Women can marry a nice husband (whose wages would be bigger once the women are out of the workplace and there will also be more jobs) or else enter religious life. If they don't desire either, they may teach (I think there is a need for some women teachers), enter nursing or mid-wife areas, cook, clean, or else there would be a benefit for unemployed women, just to keep them ticking over.

*slowly claps*

Congratulations, you have just solved the world's economic crisis. I should have known. Why didn't I see it sooner. The women are to blame for all the unemployed...


/sarcasm

Sonics2k

Yes, how dare those women be self reliant and capable of having their own careers! Selfish is what they are!

Newsflash Brer.
There's a recession on. Jobs are going out the window due to the global banking crisis and major corporations (ironically run by predominately men) are only taking care of themselves.

But yes. Your grand idea of all the women going home and popping out babies while her husband becomes the sole provider would be a great way of.... well of doing absolutely nothing but send society back a good 50 years.

_LilyRose_

Brer Fox wrote: »

Exactly, this is about social engineering.

Marx wanted women in the workplace, and he wanted women to wear jeans, because they were unisex, and he wanted to blur the natural distinction between the genders.

I read somewhere last night that these feminists or equality experts are fixated on getting women into the boardroom, but instead might ask themselves why there are so many men unemployed. This is obviously because of the rise of women in the workplace.

I say get the women out. Women can marry a nice husband (whose wages would be bigger once the women are out of the workplace and there will also be more jobs) or else enter religious life. If they don't desire either, they may teach (I think there is a need for some women teachers), enter nursing or mid-wife areas, cook, clean, or else there would be a benefit for unemployed women, just to keep them ticking over.

Men are much more tied to feelings of self-identity with work roles, whereas women are not so vulnerable in this regard. Men need work; women like to work so they can be independent like men. A suitable benefit would keep them going while they find a nice husband, train for female work, or else discern their religious vocation.

Was going to highlight the most offensive parts of this post, but ended up with the whole thing in bold.

Has to be a troll...:rolleyes:

qrrgprgua

Brer Fox wrote: »

Men are much more tied to feelings of self-identity with work roles, whereas women are not so vulnerable in this regard. Men need work; women like to work so they can be independent like men. A suitable benefit would keep them going while they find a nice husband, train for female work, or else discern their religious vocation.

Come on.. Tone it down. Makes you sound like an idiot.

Thousands of women worked as hard as men in Ireland for centuries. Many on Farms.

I admit if you have small Children is better that a parent is with them.

But there is nothing wrong with having a Job. My Sister is a Doctor She really enjoys the Job. She also spends plenty of time at home.

Its all about Balance. Are you saying all those primary teachers should go home? 80% are married Women with kids.

Brer Fox

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its all about Balance. Are you saying all those primary teachers should go home? 80% are married Women with kids.

There is a shortage of male primary school teachers. There are too many female primary teachers.

Boys need good male role models and a good male teacher is a good thing. I grew up with all female primary teachers and I think it does stifle boy's natural development.

Sonics2k

I would definitely say something has gotten in the way of your development, and sure wasn't female teachers.

Are you really of the opinion that women should drop their careers when they get married, just because it makes you think it makes a man less of a man?

There was a time when Ireland did actually have that system. Women were quitting jobs when they got married, and the jobs were often taken over by men with less experience or skill in the area, and it made the situation a lot worse.

How old are you Brer?

Brer Fox

One other thing I should point out is that the new 'Human Resources' or HR industry is staffed almost exclusively with women, usually feminists. These act as gatekeepers, ensuring that women are favoured for appointment over men. Men with traditional values would be especially at risk of discrimination.

My brother works for a company where almost all of the senior staff and managers are women, and they ensure that women are always favoured over men for promotion.

qrrgprgua

Brer Fox wrote: »

One other thing I should point out is that the new 'Human Resources' or HR industry is staffed almost exclusively with women, usually feminists. These act as gatekeepers, ensuring that women are favoured for appointment over men. Men with traditional values would be especially at risk of discrimination.

My brother works for a company where almost all of the senior staff and managers are women, and they ensure that women are always favoured over men for promotion.

Come on.... Its complete nonsense. A man gets the Job if he is better qualified.. A women likewise.

yes my HR team are all women except for 1 man. But we employ 80% men because its hard to find women who will do shift.

Gender has nothing to do with it. Yes certain areas have gender imbalance. Our Lab has more women, but this is honestly down to the fact more women applied. If men had applied they would have gotten the job.

HR does not favour anyone.. They just look for the right person for the right position.

qrrgprgua

Brer Fox wrote: »

There is a shortage of male primary school teachers. There are too many female primary teachers.

Boys need good male role models and a good male teacher is a good thing. I grew up with all female primary teachers and I think it does stifle boy's natural development.

What about GAA? 80% men..

One of the principal concerns that men considering teaching feel is the worry that they will fall foul of rules which make normal contact between adults and children a legal minefield. Lets face it all it takes is a rumour to damage a man's reputation, never mind an allegation.

Same reason why many priest have stopped running youth services, Clubs etc...

swiftblade

Brer Fox wrote: »

One other thing I should point out is that the new 'Human Resources' or HR industry is staffed almost exclusively with women, usually feminists. These act as gatekeepers, ensuring that women are favoured for appointment over men. Men with traditional values would be especially at risk of discrimination.

My brother works for a company where almost all of the senior staff and managers are women, and they ensure that women are always favoured over men for promotion.

So let me get this straight, you feel discriminated against by your HR department, yet you come on here saying it's OK discriminating against women. Am I missing something?

Links234

I really hope you're a troll, because this is some fevered brain fart of a thread.

Onesimus

Whats the point in arguing about it anyway? is this little discussion going to change anything? Damage is done. Lets just get on with it and pray for change.

Our Lady got it right in the first qoute on the first page of this thread. Our Holy Mother knows therefore as a result of these errors spread throughout humanity that women must work however much they disagree with it. Just gotta pray for change is all.

Brer, although some of your posts content are a little on the wild side in this thread we should not expect non-religious ( and even religious ) to understand. Many Catholics in this thread are also self employed historians too so studies from professors in that area lamenting the plummet and explaining the reason for this plummet go right over their self-inflated ego.

Let it be is what I say. *gone to fry to some chips and enjoy the sunshine*

Onesimus

Brer Fox

Onesimus wrote: »

Whats the point in arguing about it anyway? is this little discussion going to change anything? Damage is done. Lets just get on with it and pray for change.

Let it be is what I say. *gone to fry to some chips and enjoy the sunshine*

Onesimus

Yes, you're right Onesimus. But I think it is important that we start having these conversations now. We must break the code of silence - we must speak out in the home, in the marketplace, and in the workplace, and in the highways and byways. We must prepare the ground for the change which is to come. Of course, we must be meek as doves and wise as serpents, because our enemies would be only too happy to use our views against us, whether that means sacking us, not hiring us, or barring our promotion. These are just some of the dangers we face.

Corkfeen

Brer Fox wrote: »

Exactly, this is about social engineering.

Marx wanted women in the workplace, and he wanted women to wear jeans, because they were unisex, and he wanted to blur the natural distinction between the genders.

I read somewhere last night that these feminists or equality experts are fixated on getting women into the boardroom, but instead might ask themselves why there are so many men unemployed. This is obviously because of the rise of women in the workplace.

I say get the women out. Women can marry a nice husband (whose wages would be bigger once the women are out of the workplace and there will also be more jobs) or else enter religious life. If they don't desire either, they may teach (I think there is a need for some women teachers), enter nursing or mid-wife areas, cook, clean, or else there would be a benefit for unemployed women, just to keep them ticking over.

Men are much more tied to feelings of self-identity with work roles, whereas women are not so vulnerable in this regard. Men need work; women like to work so they can be independent like men. A suitable benefit would keep them going while they find a nice husband, train for female work, or else discern their religious vocation.

So they should all quit so men can have jobs... :pac: Plenty of women are far more capable than men in their jobs. You basically seem to want to regress the civil rights of women. I absolutely hate people who use the word feminist and 'equality experts' as if they're committing some heinous crime. The lack of jobs in the country has absolutely nothing to do with equality.. And what exactly is wrong with equality? Just because you don't like equality for women (and probably many other parts of society) doesn't mean your opinion is in anyway valid.

You're making statements about how children need teachers that are male role models. Everything you've said seems to be rooted in your archaic prejudices which you're using the bible to backup. Would you also like for black people to return to the sugar plantations?

And what exactly is up with your obsession with Marx? You're a time traveler aren't you? Traveling from a period when women did the chores and let the men make all the decisions. And you're terrified of the communists infiltrating society... :rolleyes:

swiftblade

Brer Fox wrote: »

Yes, you're right Onesimus. But I think it is important that we start having these conversations now. We must break the code of silence - we must speak out in the home, in the marketplace, and in the workplace, and in the highways and byways. We must prepare the ground for the change which is to come. Of course, we must be meek as doves and wise as serpents, because our enemies would be only too happy to use our views against us, whether that means sacking us, not hiring us, or barring our promotion. These are just some of the dangers we face.

You better well believe it. This has gone beyond a religious issue. You can hide behind your religion as the reason for your intolerances, but that doesn't make it OK.

Onesimus

Brer Fox wrote: »

Yes, you're right Onesimus. But I think it is important that we start having these conversations now. We must break the code of silence - we must speak out in the home, in the marketplace, and in the workplace, and in the highways and byways. We must prepare the ground for the change which is to come. Of course, we must be meek as doves and wise as serpents, because our enemies would be only too happy to use our views against us, whether that means sacking us, not hiring us, or barring our promotion. These are just some of the dangers we face.

Yes I know but first we must introduce the crowd to a relationship with God before they can have respect for his precepts and advice. Arguing therefore with people who couldnt care less for the 10 commandments and Gospel is futile. Much better to have your say and get out.

St.Francis says we must preach the Gospel with our lives. It is this transformation of ourselves that invites others. And once others are transformed into a Christ-like image then they will be able to swallow and respect Gods precepts and understand then discussions such as these ones.

Not that I am almighty and know God. Just my two cents from what I learned from the Fathers

God bless
Onesimus

Andrewf20

I read the inital post and what springs to mind is selfishness (once the man is happy, thats the most important thing) and it makes generalisations. A family unit (i.e the parents) should be mature enough to make up its own mind as to whats best for them.

Absolutely right, let's copy the Saudis, they have the right idea

Corkfeen

bluewolf wrote: »

Absolutely right, let's copy the Saudis, they have the right idea

The worrying thing is i've seen a few posters on boards that seem to love that idea.:eek:

qrrgprgua

Corkfeen wrote: »

The worrying thing is i've seen a few posters on boards that seem to love that idea.:eek:

We don't.... In fact I am ashamed to see this thread in the Christian forum.

What is needed in Parental responsibility, Balance in work life. Being there for your kids.

That does not mean women giving up the jobs.

Corkfeen

qrrgprgua wrote: »

We don't.... In fact I am ashamed to see this thread in the Christian forum.

What is needed in Parental responsibility, Balance in work life. Being there for your kids.

That does not mean women giving up the jobs.

That's why I specified 'boards' meaning the site as a whole rather than the Christianity forum.

philologos

I lament threads like this. Adding unbiblical social opinion to the gospel should disgust Bible believing Christians. Claiming it to be a revelation from Mary is even more blasphemous. It's no wonder why many people don't know Jesus and don't want anything to do with Him either when people say such nonsense in His name.

lmaopml

It's a difficult thread because we are living in a difficult world. I am a Mum who works, I've been blessed with being able to work part time and having understanding people who are my 'boss' - in the working world.

I think it's very difficult for women sometimes. We're looked down on for staying at home, and looked down on for working too - we're trying to be all things all at once sometimes, and it's an impossible task - it's like chasing your tail.

Look, it's just a symptom of the world. I hip hip hoorah at those who see that a womans strenght of character doesn't reside in her ability to lift weights, but recognise her contribution in ALL fields of life, and that doesn't only include teaching - the hand that rocks the cradle etc. etc.


- yet, there is something lost when women are divided, because they are - and don't say that it's a pretty cool woman who is a stay at home mum too, all the sacrifices made to do so. I think the ultimate resolution resides in the ability to choose...but 'choice' is not available sometimes.

....and that ability is being lost fairly rapidly, it's looked on as a 'luxury'. That would be my concern. The Swedes have struck a fairly good equilibrium that imo values Father, Mother and Child insofar as supporting the family is concerned and the never ending wheel of the 'job'.


The Swedes have something to say..lol..

Doc Farrell

philologos wrote: »

I lament threads like this. Adding unbiblical social opinion to the gospel should disgust Bible believing Christians. Claiming it to be a revelation from Mary is even more blasphemous. It's no wonder why many people don't know Jesus and don't want anything to do with Him either when people say such nonsense in His name.

I agree with you. I have been avoiding this forum for a while because the opinions expressed by individuals who call themselves Christians are extremely disturbing. Back in the 70's my mother worked in kitchens for less than minimum wage so that we could eat. Do you know what its like to raise a family in poverty Brer fox? Have you any idea how difficult most people find life.?

This has got to be the most obscene and absurd thread I've ever read on this Irish forum, started by a poster who calls Peter McVerry egotistical. Get some help and stop posting this kind of nonsense, it is beyond disgraceful.

lmaopml

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I agree with you. I have been avoiding this forum for a while because the opinions expressed by individuals who call themselves Christians are extremely disturbing. Back in the 70's my mother worked in kitchens for less than minimum wage so that we could eat. Do you know what its like to raise a family in poverty Brer fox? Have you any idea how difficult most people find life.?

This has got to be the most obscene and absurd thread I've ever read on this Irish forum, started by a poster who calls Peter McVerry egotistical. Get some help and stop posting this kind of nonsense, it is beyond disgraceful.

Well it's nothing new to be 'disturbed'. If somebody expresses an opinion give a counter one. Real life as described by your own post for example helps to educate - Still, it doesn't mean that others couldn't benefit from more than just a persons outrage, especially the young too.

Onesimus

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I agree with you. I have been avoiding this forum for a while because the opinions expressed by individuals who call themselves Christians are extremely disturbing. Back in the 70's my mother worked in kitchens for less than minimum wage so that we could eat. Do you know what its like to raise a family in poverty Brer fox? Have you any idea how difficult most people find life.?

This has got to be the most obscene and absurd thread I've ever read on this Irish forum, started by a poster who calls Peter McVerry egotistical. Get some help and stop posting this kind of nonsense, it is beyond disgraceful.

Brer is simply relaying what the Iona institute has studied and come up with. He is then relaying that here and is in agreement with it albeit giving his own opinion and twist on it too here and there.

Are you aware that Jesus lived in poverty whilst St.Joseph went to work and Our Lady stayed at home? and we are called ( to the best of our ability ) by the Church to model ourselves on the Holy family.

Some women are not always in a position to stay at home and thanks to some people like Karl Marx they have to go out and work. There is no shame in that because that is the way present life is and has shaped itself.

Can a family in poverty afford to now have one parent at home and the other work? Yes absolutely because we are one of those people. I work and wife homeschools children and looks after the house and everything else.

But everyone in this day and age have their own strengths and weaknesses. My mother too went out to work because we had no money but first chance she got ( when things got better ) she stayed at home and there she remained whilst my dad worked.

I can see the argument on both sides. Another question is: all of us seem to be talking about women staying at home. But what about the single woman who has no husband and no vocation to religious life? What does she do? She can't scrounge around on the dole.....she'd go mad. She has to work right?

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

I can see the argument on both sides. Another question is: all of us seem to be talking about women staying at home. But what about the single woman who has no husband and no vocation to religious life? What does she do? She can't scrounge around on the dole.....she'd go mad. She has to work right?

Yes, and it's about giving dignity, redemption, a role as a child of God - and putting our money where our mouth is too - to the innocent children who deserve love. That's the idea of community that supports eachother through good and bad - to have the perseverence to love, despite those who say different, everybody is the same, no matter.

Brer Fox

lmaopml wrote: »

It's a difficult thread because we are living in a difficult world. I am a Mum who works, I've been blessed with being able to work part time and having understanding people who are my 'boss' - in the working world.

I think it's very difficult for women sometimes. We're looked down on for staying at home, and looked down on for working too - we're trying to be all things all at once sometimes, and it's an impossible task - it's like chasing your tail.

Look, it's just a symptom of the world. I hip hip hoorah at those who see that a womans strenght of character doesn't reside in her ability to lift weights, but recognise her contribution in ALL fields of life, and that doesn't only include teaching - the hand that rocks the cradle etc. etc.


- yet, there is something lost when women are divided, because they are - and don't say that it's a pretty cool woman who is a stay at home mum too, all the sacrifices made to do so. I think the ultimate resolution resides in the ability to choose...but 'choice' is not available sometimes.

....and that ability is being lost fairly rapidly, it's looked on as a 'luxury'. That would be my concern. The Swedes have struck a fairly good equilibrium that imo values Father, Mother and Child insofar as supporting the family is concerned and the never ending wheel of the 'job'.


The Swedes have something to say..lol..

Yes but the 'wheel of the job' was the man's role, that of provider. But he can't be the provider if the women have taken all the jobs. Women are trying to be like men by being the provider, but they can't do both. You can't be in the home as a homemaker and out in the workplace as well. Like the priest who is married, he is pulled in two directions. The natural order established by God valued each partner in marriage and allowed the best of both to flourish, each in their own way.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I agree with you. I have been avoiding this forum for a while because the opinions expressed by individuals who call themselves Christians are extremely disturbing. Back in the 70's my mother worked in kitchens for less than minimum wage so that we could eat. Do you know what its like to raise a family in poverty Brer fox? Have you any idea how difficult most people find life.?

This has got to be the most obscene and absurd thread I've ever read on this Irish forum, started by a poster who calls Peter McVerry egotistical. Get some help and stop posting this kind of nonsense, it is beyond disgraceful.

Your comments are very judgmental. Just cos a person dinny agree with you does not make them un-Christian. And yes, I know how life is, because I have a hard time finding work in large part because women have infiltrated the area of expertise which I studied which was traditionally male-dominated. I've been in interviews and assessment centres up against women who would trample on your face to get the job ahead of you, so yes, I know how tough it is. I've been in a room with other guys and with young ladies, and they would scare you, the aggression of them, it is unreal. Us guys are like wtf?

As I read elsewhere ad is entirely pertinent:

"Women, in ever growing numbers, are despising and abandoning their femaleness. They thus cripple themselves for the fulfillment of their sublime vocation of mothering children to maturity. Men, frightened by the blazing fury of the women's liberation movement, are surrendering male roles and positions to psychologically desexualized women.."

You can't tell me that is not exactly what has happened.

Onesimus wrote: »

Brer is simply relaying what the Iona institute has studied and come up with. He is then relaying that here and is in agreement with it albeit giving his own opinion and twist on it too here and there.

Are you aware that Jesus lived in poverty whilst St.Joseph went to work and Our Lady stayed at home? and we are called ( to the best of our ability ) by the Church to model ourselves on the Holy family.

Some women are not always in a position to stay at home and thanks to some people like Karl Marx they have to go out and work. There is no shame in that because that is the way present life is and has shaped itself.

Can a family in poverty afford to now have one parent at home and the other work? Yes absolutely because we are one of those people. I work and wife homeschools children and looks after the house and everything else.

But everyone in this day and age have their own strengths and weaknesses. My mother too went out to work because we had no money but first chance she got ( when things got better ) she stayed at home and there she remained whilst my dad worked.

I can see the argument on both sides. Another question is: all of us seem to be talking about women staying at home. But what about the single woman who has no husband and no vocation to religious life? What does she do? She can't scrounge around on the dole.....she'd go mad. She has to work right?

For the women not called to marriage or feminine works such as nursing or teaching, the religious life beckons. It is a wonderful life.

qrrgprgua

Brer Fox wrote: »

For the women not called to marriage or feminine works such as nursing or teaching, the religious life beckons. It is a wonderful life.

Look. You can't formulate a Christian vision of what women should or should not do. Look at Marie Curie?former President McAleese.

There is nothing wrong with working