cross-posted from: https://wolfballs.com/post/20467

cross-posted from: https://wolfballs.com/post/20466

A Catholic Marriage Manual from 1958 states (p. 116):

(It’s this book but you’d need an account to borrow it to check it: https://archive.org/details/catholicmarriage00kell)

“Danger of the working wife [Section Title] … In 1890, only 4% of married women in the United States were gainfully employed. By 1940, that number had increased to fifteen percent, and by 1956 thirty per cent of all married women held jobs outside the home. … The wife should work outside the home only in cases of great necessity. Experience teaches that the path of the working wife is strewn with difficulties, both for herself and her family. … In other cases, if the wife’s income approximates or exceeds that of her hsuband [sic], his pride may be deeply wounded, and friction may easily develop over the question of who is head of the household. Work outside the home may also foster traits undesirable in a wife. She may become economically independent, and be less willing to make sacrifices and emotional adjustments to keep relations with her husband on a happy basis.”

And so on. You get the gist. I am not aware of this teaching being formally rejected in any way and so many “Catholics” would be in violation of it today (?).

It also seems to imply the “house husband” arrangement is unthinkable, or a choice for a minority (?).

To me the rise of female breadwinners, and house husbands, stems from a rejection of Christian teaching and social norms.

Yes, no? What is to be thought of “house husbands” today?

@iamtanmay
link
fedilink
110d

Some men are less able than their wives to earn the dough. Some women are also extremely incapable of running the house. Its a compromise, not an ideal.

Some cases its great, for e.g. if the husband is an artist. Work at home can go well with raising kids

Its better for everyone if people do things they are good at, rather than try to match an ideal they can’t reach

Masterofballs
admin
link
fedilink
110d

I think of it less from a religious perspective and more from a evolutionary perspectives.

Men hunted and brought the animal to the women who divided it up fairly among the tribe/family. Men need to make a kill. We need it to feel whole. Women need a man to bring them a big hairy dead animal. They need it to feel whole.

There is much more to this dynamic but in general neither the women or man will feel whole and the entire life will feel wrong and likely not succeed for very long.

Unless they can find someway to emulate the man bringing the kill.

@charliebrownau
banned
link
fedilink
0
edit-2
6d

removed by mod

Post anything, all are welcome. No one can kick your post here. Do what you like. @WiggleHard bans nothing and exiles nobody (Dont doxx wolfballs users, no posting of porn/nudes or foot fetish material unless it involves political scandals, no ads for sex sites or dating sites; do that on your own time, no solicitation for pyramid scams, no posting job advertisements unless from official job sites, no posts supporting pedophilia, not all love is love) also: (we cannot allow violations of the patriot act concerning how we speak, no calls for violence, suggesting you are personally harming someone ect. These things are not free speech protected by law but actually against the law and could get the website shut down.) (no spam posting, especially spam posting of what could be considered symbols of hate) examples: guy posting nazi flag 5 times in one day, guy posting “whitey is the devil over and over, im going to use my best judgement on this one rule)

  • 0 users online
  • 8 users / day
  • 16 users / week
  • 28 users / month
  • 91 users / 6 months
  • 99 subscribers
  • 3.91K Posts
  • 7.18K Comments
  • Modlog