Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I work with teens, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the decay of the family has been absolutely catastrophic for many of them. 

Completely unrelated.  I have also worked with teens in residential treatment centers (in fact, my dad founded one) and am well aware of the general underlying issues of these youth.  Never once has any of the familial disfunction, abuse, trauma and other factors that so severely impact these children to the point that they need professional intervention been attributed to a mother working outside the home in my experience.   It's not like everything was good until mom started working, then suddenly all hell breaks loose as the family "decays" into oblivion and "absolute catastrophe".  Nope.  It simply doesn't happen like that.  

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion.

No, it's not that hard to say at all.  To unnecessarily guilt/shame mothers who work to support their families; to induce guilt/shame/fear by suggesting that their working outside the home is a "major" factor in the "catastrophic" issues that many youth suffer from is disgraceful.  Mothers often over-guilt themselves as it is as they strive to be super-mom for their kids, we don't need to pile on more unnecessary and misattributed guilt.

Edited January 30, 2023 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

I'd say that if working correlates to women divorcing, it just means that some women are trapped financially in marriage, that they would leave if they could.

Also, if a husband needs his wife to be dependent upon him, or if he feels threatened by her financial independence, he lacks relational maturity and is seeking intimacy in a dysfunctional fashion.

Happy relationships are enhanced by growth of all parties. Love is most exquisite when it is voluntary, not when it is coerced or forced by circumstances.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

If you enjoy the opulent lifestyle you currently lead, which includes paved roads, operating cars, HVAC, indoor plumbing, electricity, sturdy well-built buildings, planes that stay in the sky, boats that move across the water, goods that are loaded on ships sent across the ocean so you can buy them, and other amenities, then men simply cannot stay at home. Men perform all of the dirty task that women avoid and men perform these dirty task 40 to 80 hours a week so men and women can live in comfort. 

 Which firefighter would you prefer to have search for you and attempt to carry you out of your burning home-a 6'4" 220 pound male firefighter or a 5'6" 130 pound female firefighter weighing 130 pounds? 

 

If you keep beating your chest like that you are going to bruise it.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Hey Pogi, 

What’s up with the contentious response and the straw-man?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Never once has any of the familial disfunction, abuse, trauma and other factors that so severely impact these children to the point that they need professional intervention been attributed to a mother working outside the home in my experience. 

I never once argued that mothers working outside of the home in and of itself led to children needing professional intervention. Complete straw-man. 

I said that I have seen first hand how the decay of the family has been catastrophic for teens. And it has been. Most of these teens never receive any kind of professional intervention. They just deal with it the best they can. Over half of the kids these days come from broken homes. The impact of this is really bad. As is the impact of parent absence in the home. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It's not like everything was good until mom started working, then suddenly all hell breaks loose as the family "decays" into oblivion and "absolute catastrophe".

Another straw-man. I have not once made this claim. Not even close. I have repeatedly and consistently said that I believe mothers leaving the home is one of the factors that has led to the decay of the family and higher divorce rates. I  never once claimed that as soon as a mother leaves the house all hell breaks loose. In fact I literately stated that it’s hard to say how much of this is due to mothers leaving the home to work and how much is due to other factors. And then you turn around and make the straw-man argument that I claimed that it was all due to mothers leaving the home. Rather disingenuous in my opinion. 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

To unnecessarily guilt/shame mothers who work to support their families

Another straw-man. I haven’t guilted or shamed mothers. In fact in an earlier post I said that the blame for unnecessary mother absence in the home may rest with the mother, the father, or both.

Mostly I blame society for telling women who choose to be homemakers and not work outside the home that they aren’t as good as career women. It is society that shames homemakers and tells families that the wife needs to work so they can have the big house, the new cars, the expensive vacations, etc. It’s society I blame. And ultimately it’s Satan I blame. 

And now a couple of questions for you. 

Are you claiming that the brethren were wrong to encourage mothers not to work outside the home unless absolutely necessary?

And are you claiming that there are no benefits to the family if the mother stays home and no negative consequences if she leaves to go to work?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[MustardSeed]

34 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Are you claiming that the brethren were wrong to encourage mothers not to work outside the home unless absolutely necessary?

I claim this went on too long. And “necessary” is relative. It’s not for the brethren to decide. IMO.  Never has been. I think the assertion that women shouldn’t work was not a commandment from God but rather an opinion of humans.    The breakdown of the family and home is not  something that should be blamed on women working.  That idea comes from men who have anxiety about women being exposed to the world imo.  Families with working moms can function very well when other factors are managed correctly.  

[MustardSeed]

39 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And are you claiming that there are no benefits to the family if the mother stays home and no negative consequences if she leaves to go to work?

I know you didn’t ask me but I’m going to answer anyway. I addressed this in my previous post. There are cost and benefits for women working.

Likewise there are cost and benefits for men working. 
 

Cost AND benefits.  For BOTH. 

[MustardSeed]

I don’t have a problem with women working. I don’t have a problem with women who stay home. I don’t have a problem with men who work. I don’t have a problem with men who stay home. I trust people to make those decisions for themselves based on what their family needs. At the same time, not everybody does make the best decisions. As a family therapist, I recognize that there are lots of factors that lead to divorce. To have this conversation about women working in the context of divorce and the breakdown of the family to me seems narrow minded and quite frankly limited and obtuse. 

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Women have always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husband dies, becomes unable to support them, or the marriage ends.

That is a statement of fact, so CFR please 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Completely unrelated.  I have also worked with teens in residential treatment centers (in fact, my dad founded one) and am well aware of the general underlying issues of these youth.  Never once has any of the familial disfunction, abuse, trauma and other factors that so severely impact these children to the point that they need professional intervention been attributed to a mother working outside the home in my experience.   It's not like everything was good until mom started working, then suddenly all hell breaks loose as the family "decays" into oblivion and "absolute catastrophe".  Nope.  It simply doesn't happen like that.  

I would like to see more communication between folks in your line of work and folks in mine.  In particular, I know a number of attorneys who work at public defenders for juveniles.  Those guys anecdotally see a huge correlation between A) lack of parental supervision in the home (for whatever reason, including both parents working), and B) criminality and other adverse effects on the lives of the kids.  And their observations seem to be borne out by the data.

Here (2015) :

Quote

Economic and social pressures are forcing more parents into the workplace at a time when children appear to most need adult guidance and supervision. These children, in turn, face a growing number of problems such as physical and sexual abuse, crime and delinquency, depression and suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, emotional and behavioral problems, learning difficulties, school attendance problems, domestic violence, pregnancy, abortion, and venereal disease. Many "latchkey" children experience stressful and even dangerous situations without ready access to adult guidance and support. It is estimated that as many as 10 million children care for themselves before or after school. Many latchkey kids begin their self-care responsibilities at about 8 years of age.

Here:

Quote

Every August, when Oklahoma children return to school, my thoughts turn to our latchkey kids and the hazards and menaces they face. These kids, who return from school to spend several hours home alone while their parents work, often feel lonely and isolated. Research shows prolonged loneliness can be devastating, possibly giving rise to depression, anxiety, irritability and high-risk behaviors. 

In fact, among mental health professionals, the hours that latchkey kids spend at home are known as “the danger zone.” 

During the 3 to 6 p.m. window, juvenile violent crimes triple, and youth are more likely to drink, smoke and do drugs. They are also more likely to become victims of crime. For example, sexual assaults on children are most likely to occur at 8 a.m., noon and 3-4 p.m. (In contrast, adults are more likely to be victims of sexual assault between midnight and 2 a.m.)

Fortunately, there is an obvious way to help keep these risks at bay: after-school programs. Children benefit in numerous ways from enriched learning, recreation, the arts, and being around nurturing and supportive adults during the danger zone hours. We are fortunate to have a number of successful and affordable after-school programs in Oklahoma, but we still need to invest in developing more in order to safeguard the mental wellbeing of our most vulnerable kids. 

Here:

Quote

Latchkey children is a term that's often used to describe children who must stay at home alone taking care of themselves for some part of the day. Usually, they're the children of working parents. Experts estimate that from 5 to 12 million children between the ages of 5 and 13 are at home alone for some period of time every day. In many cases, their parents either cannot afford child care, or none is available.

These children are about 3 times more likely to be involved in accidents, engage in delinquent behavior, or be victimized than those supervised by adults. Parents who must leave their children home alone on a regular basis are often gravely concerned with not only their ability to handle potentially dangerous situations but how they cope with routine activities.

Here (the Federal Office of Justice Programs) : 

Quote

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline. According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment.

I know and hold in high regard many single parents (most of whom are not in that circumstance by their own choice) but the foregoing data is hard to ignore.  

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion.

No, it's not that hard to say at all.  To unnecessarily guilt/shame mothers who work to support their families;

I don't think he is "guilting/shaming" anyone here.  He speaks of "women leaving the home unnecessarily," which cohort would not, I think, include many (most?) "mothers who work to support their families."

2 hours ago, pogi said:

to induce guilt/shame/fear by suggesting that their working outside the home is a "major" factor in the "catastrophic" issues that many youth suffer from is disgraceful. 

To cite data about the adverse effects of the lack of parental supervision is not to "guilt/shame" per se nor is it "disgraceful" per se.

There are all sorts of circumstances giving rise to "latchkey" kids, to kids being at home for long stretches without parental or adult supervision.  The adverse consequences that often arise from that circumstance are pretty clear.  Now, there are many folks who have no choice, whose kids are in "latchkey" circumstances because of financial necessities, divorce, and so on.  We need to support these folks as much as we possibly can.

There are also circumstances in which families have "latchkey" kids as a matter of choice or preference, rather than necessity.  We also need to support these folks as much as we possibly can, but we should also discourage the choices/preferences that create latchkey circumstances.

We as a society are fine with strongly discouraging women to drink alcohol during pregnancy.  We are also fine with criticizing "deadbeat dads" who fail in their financial and other duties to their children.  Is this "guilt/shame"?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Mothers often over-guilt themselves as it is as they strive to be super-mom for their kids, we don't need to pile on more unnecessary and misattributed guilt.

I quite agree.  We need to help mothers wherever we can.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

@smac97 One point I noticed in your citations was the gender neutrality. Your citations use the term "parents" rather than gendered "mother" or "father." I think it is our mistake as complementarians to take data like this and preferentially push the blame onto mothers working outside the home rather than fathers working outside the home. If your citations are representative, I think our dialog needs to focus on both parents being able to choose a proper work/home balance rather than strictly emphasizing the failures of women to choose an appropriate work/home balance.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think he is "guilting/shaming" anyone here.  He speaks of "women leaving the home unnecessarily," which cohort would not, I think, include many (most?) "mothers who work to support their families."

Neanderthal is speaking of two-parent homes where women have an option to work.  You (and your data) seem to be addressing divorced single-family homes with latchkey kids.  As you say, work for these mothers is not "unnecessary". 

Two parent homes with working mothers aren't a "major" factor in childhood delinquency that I have ever seen.  Can you show me any data for that?  Your data addresses the increased risk for children of divorced, single parent, working mother, latchkey child families.   Those mothers don't have a choice but to work.  And I have not seen any data which suggests that working as a mother placed them in that position, or at least was a major contributing factor which led to divorce and the "catastrophic" erosion of the family he speaks of. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are also circumstances in which families have "latchkey" kids as a matter of choice or preference, rather than necessity.  We also need to support these folks as much as we possibly can, but we should also discourage the choices/preferences that create latchkey circumstances.

It seems there is an assumption in his argument that working mothers of necessity produce latchkey kids.  That simply is not the case.  Where it does, I agree, I think the parents (it doesn't necessarily have to be the mother, it could be the father) have the responsibility to provide a way for their children to be supervised while they are at work.  It doesn't necessarily have to be the parents either.  It could be grandparents, uncles, etc. 

Yes, misattributing the destruction of the family and delinquency teens to working mothers - that is shaming of working mothers and is unsupported.  

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by pogi

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That is a statement of fact, so CFR please 

During the time period that church leaders were strongly advocating for women to not work outside the home, there were many jobs available to women and the church, other churches , and other charitable organizations had programs to help out, too. It’s not as if women who lost a husband or whose husband became incapacitated had zero options to support themselves and their children. 

This is common knowledge. What type of reference do you want for this? 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 One point I noticed in your citations was the gender neutrality. Your citations use the term "parents" rather than gendered "mother" or "father."

An approach I think I was emulating in my remarks.

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think it is our mistake as complementarians to take data like this and preferentially push the blame onto mothers working outside the home rather than fathers working outside the home.

I was not seeking to allocate "blame."  I think the closest I came to it was to (mildly) speak against "families {who} have 'latchkey' kids as a matter of choice or preference, rather than necessity," and even then I said that "{w}e also need to support these folks as much as we possibly can, but we should also discourage the choices/preferences that create latchkey circumstances."

I think the Family Proclamation is a generally accurate and fair statement of both reality (broadly speaking, mothers are more likely to stay at home than fathers) and aspirations:

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Frankly, I don't know very many people who have both parents working by "choice," or to maintain a profligate lifestyle.  But then, I live in more modest "working class" area, so my sampling is skewed.  In any event, pretty much everyone I now who have both parents working are doing so because of "{d}isability, death or other circumstances" which "necessitate individual adaptation."

At present, I can't think of any families with children of my acquaintance where the stay-at-home parent is the father.   See, e.g., here (from 2014) :

Quote

While most stay-at-home parents are mothers, fathers represent a growing share of all at-home parents – 16% in 2012, up from 10% in 1989. Roughly a quarter of these stay-at-home fathers (23%) report that they are home mainly because they cannot find a job. Nearly as many (21%) say the main reason they are home is to care for their home or family. This represents a fourfold increase from 1989, when only 5% of stay-at-home fathers said they were home primarily to care for family.

Check out the historical stats for stay-at-home dads here:

Quote

191,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2019 U.S. Census)
190,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2018 U.S. Census)
267,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2017 U.S. Census)
209,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2016 U.S. Census)
199,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2015 U.S. Census)
211,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2014 U.S. Census)
214,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2013 U.S. Census)
189,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2012 U.S. Census)
176,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2011 U.S. Census)
154,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2010 U.S. Census)
158,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2009 U.S. Census)
140,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2008 U.S. Census)
165,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2007 U.S. Census)
159,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2006 U.S. Census)
143,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2005 U.S. Census)
147,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2004 U.S. Census)
98,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2003 U.S. Census)
106,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2002 U.S. Census)
81,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2001 U.S. Census)
93,000 Stay-At-Home Dads (2000 U.S. Census)

Quite a few surges and drops here, but stay-at-home dads still seem to be the minority.

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If your citations are representative, I think our dialog needs to focus on both parents being able to choose a proper work/home balance rather than strictly emphasizing the failures of women to choose an appropriate work/home balance.

I quite agree.  It is for that reason that my remarks were gender-neutral.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I don't think he is "guilting/shaming" anyone here.  He speaks of "women leaving the home unnecessarily," which cohort would not, I think, include many (most?) "mothers who work to support their families."

Neanderthal is speaking of two-parent homes where women have an option to work.  You (and your data) seem to be addressing divorced single-family homes with latchkey kids.  As you say, work for these mothers is not "unnecessary". 

Two parent homes with working mothers aren't a "major" factor in childhood delinquency.  Can you show me any data for that?  Your data addresses the increased risk for children of divorced, single parent, working mother, latchkey child families.   Those mothers don't have a choice but to work. 

I agree.  Again, I was going off of his comment about "women leaving the home unnecessarily."  If that is decontextualized, I apologize.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

And I have not seen any data which suggests that working as a mother placed them in that position, or at least was a major contributing factor which led to divorce and the "catastrophic" erosion of the family he speaks of. 

As I said in a previous post, I don't know very many people who have both parents working by "choice," or to maintain a profligate lifestyle.  There are such people, no doubt, but I think the lion's share of folks have both parents working out of necessity.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems there is an assumption in his argument that working mothers of necessity produce latchkey kids.  That simply is not the case. 

The data I have seen speaks of "latchkey kids" broadly.  Those circumstances can arise from a variety of circumstances, which would certainly include "working mothers of necessity."  Whether by "necessity" or by "choice," a family in which the child or children spend long hours without parental/adult supervision are more likely to encounter a variety of problems as opposed to non-latchkey situations.  That is not an indictment on any cohort.  That's just reality.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where it does, I agree, I think the parents (it doesn't necessarily have to be the mother, it could be the father) need to provide a way for their children to be supervised while they are at work. 

Yep.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

It doesn't necessarily have to be the parents either.  It could be grandparents, uncles, etc. 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

During the time period that church leaders were strongly advocating for women to not work outside the home, there were many jobs available to women and the church, other churches , and other charitable organizations had programs to help out, too. It’s not as if women who lost a husband or whose husband became incapacitated had zero options to support themselves and their children. 

This is common knowledge. What type of reference do you want for this? 

I would like a reference that shows historically it was rare for a mother on her own not to live at poverty level or have to give up her kids to relatives because she couldn’t care for them on her own. 

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  Again, I was going off of his comment about "women leaving the home unnecessarily." 

Right, "unnecessarily" suggests that it is not likely a single mother of a divorced home, and does not necessarily imply latchkey kids.   What it suggests to me is a two-parent home where the mother decides to work.  According to him, that is a "major" contributing factor in the the "absolutely catastrophic" downfall of the family and delinquency of teens.    That is simply unsupported nonsense that is misattributing guilt and shame on working mothers.  

[Grug the Neanderthal]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is simply unsupported nonsense

CFR please.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

CFR please?

So...you want a reference suggesting that there is no reference to support your claims?  Sorry, I can't prove a negative.

No, you made the claim, you back it up.  CFR.  

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

So...you want a reference suggesting that there is no reference to support your claims?  Sorry, I can't prove a negative.

No, you made the claim, you back it up.  CFR.  

Agreed. The way you phrased it, you could put up 100 sources contradicting it and he could still say you didn’t prove it was unsupported.  Putting up one source that supports it would disprove you, but CFRs don’t require someone to try and disprove their claim from how I understand it. 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Agreed. The way you phrased it, you could put up 100 sources contradicting it and he could still say you didn’t prove it was unsupported.  Putting up one source that supports it would disprove you, but CFRs don’t require someone to try and disprove their claim from how I understand it. 

Yep. If the studies don’t exist to support his claim, then they don’t exist.  I can’t prove a negative.  No reference could possibly prove that they don’t exist.

Edited January 31, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Why is that a dumb statement?

And why did you ignore my main point, which I repeated twice? For decades the leaders of the church encouraged women to get an education and be prepared to support themselves and their families, while simultaneously telling women to stay home and nurture their children and not work outside the home unless it is absolutely necessary. 

I believe that this was sound council, that is now largely being ignored. And the negative consequences we are seeing are exactly what the leaders of the church warned would happen.

I agree that social media is a factor in divorce and the decay of the family today, but definitely not a bigger factor. 

The divorce rate skyrocketed to the around the level that we see today long before social media was even a thing. Social media has definitely made things worse, but the root cause was already there. 

"Women have always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husband dies, becomes unable to support them, or the marriage ends." is a dumb statement because it's false.  Women have not always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husbands die.

I appreciate that the church has always encouraged women to get an education, but you can't be absent from the workforce for 20 years and then fall back on a bachelor's degree you got decades ago.  I have a neighbor who got divorced (her husband left her) and she had been a stay at home mom.  She had a degree in nursing and had worked as a nurse but it had been too long and she wasn't hirable.  She was destitute, only surviving on minimum wage jobs and church help.  

Rongo, I know that this is something that you feel very strongly about--you've spoken of it many times in the past--but women working outside of the home is not the cause of society's high divorce rate.  As Mustard Seed said, the divorce rate has been going down for decades.

Here's one study that shows that it peaked in 1979 and has been going down since.  Also, the state with the lowest divorce rate is New Hampshire and the highest is Alabama.  I would be greatly surprised if Alabama had more married working mothers than New Hampshire (to explain why it was so high and NH was so low.) 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

So...you want a reference suggesting that there is no reference to support your claims?  Sorry, I can't prove a negative.

No, you made the claim, you back it up.  CFR.  

No, I want a reference for your claim that my opinion is unsupported nonsense. I don’t have to provide a reference for what I clearly stated was only my opinion. However I am absolutely able to provide evidence to support my opinion. Here’s one study that supports my opinion:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/nov/14/workandcareers

Now please provide a reference showing that there’s no evidence whatsoever that mother absence in the home has a negative impact on the family, particularly the children. Otherwise please retract your charge.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, I want a reference for your claim that my opinion is unsupported nonsense. I don’t have to provide a reference for what I clearly stated was only my opinion. (However I am absolutely able to provide evidence to support my opinion).

So please provide a reference showing that there’s no evidence whatsoever that mother absence in the home has a negative impact on the family, particularly the children. Otherwise please retract your charge.

Stop being a pedantic twit. That is not how the rule works.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I would like a reference that shows historically it was rare for a mother on her own not to live at poverty level or have to give up her kids to relatives because she couldn’t care for them on her own. 

First of all, this isn’t what I claimed, so you’re moving the goalposts. 

Secondly, what historical time period are you referencing? I’m talking about the time period in which the leaders of the church were strongly discouraging mothers from working outside the home when it wasn’t absolutely necessary. 

Thirdly, the issue of living in poverty is irrelevant. Many people live in poverty, but being poor doesn’t mean you can’t support yourself or your family. Plus by today’s standards most people throughout history lived in poverty. And by the standard of living within the United States today most people in the world live in poverty. 

So what reference would like me to provide that most women have always found a way to support themselves and their families, when they no longer had a husband to provide for them? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Women have not always found the means to support themselves and their children if their husbands die.

Actually, they pretty much always have. What percentage of women throughout history were no longer able to access the basic necessities of life, food, water, and shelter, when their husbands died? How many of them died from starvation or exposure. I don’t have the statistics in front of me, but I'm confident that it’s at most a tiny fraction. 

And again, I’m talking about the time period in which the leaders of the church were strongly discouraging women from working outside the home unless it was absolutely necessary. If widows were unable to support themselves, churches and other charities stepped in until they found the means to support themselves. 

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

women working outside of the home is not the cause of society's high divorce rate.

Women working outside the home is definitely one of the factors that has led to higher divorce rates and the overall decay of the family. And before I get asked for another CFR, I'm prepared to quote several general authorities who taught this and present studies that show this to be the case. And for anyone who insists on these references, I would first like to see a reference that shows that there is absolutely no correlation between the spike in divorces and women working outside the home. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal