Love it Jennifer!  Thank you for a very refreshing article (coming from a mom whose categories overlap).

Jennifer, thanks for this!  The mommy wars are outdated - I think because most women do what they have to, not what they choose to.  My take on it can be found here! http://www.countrycatholiccitycatholic.blogspot.com/2012/04/just-what-kind-of-mother-are-you.html

I definitely agree.  My husband and I are praying about and taking action toward starting a family business.  I think it would be good for all of us.  I would be “working” from home more but my husband would be home and near the children much more than he is now, which I think is important.  We homeschool so I think it would be something the whole family could be a part of, kind of like families that own and operate farms. 

One Piece of advice I have for women that are not married yet but feel they are called to it…watch out for debt, even student debt!!!  Too many people have debt and instead of being free to enter into marriage unhindered, they enter into marriage a slave to a loan, or two.  They then have to have jobs that provide a specific amount of income to pay it off.  If you’re called to a religious vocation you can’t enter if you have debt!  There are no written rules for this with marriage, but, I really feel couples and counseling priests/deacons should carefully consider this before the big day!

As a young stay-at-home mom, I don’t know if I believe that the debate on working vs. stay-at-home will really disappear.  At least, not for the stay-at-home moms who don’t bring in another form of income - or worse yet, need help with their daily work!

Right now I have only one child and I don’t work in any other capacity.  I don’t have a full-time ministry or babysitting/schooling gig or online company; I am not studying for another college degree.  And sometimes I really feel the pressure of outside opinion on my lifestyle.  When I consider my other mommy friends, they either have more than one young child (and can be excused for not working, studying, etc.) or they have one child and some other kind of employment. 

I think the debate will shift from working vs. stay-at-home to who is living the best the stay-at-home lifestyle.  We will compare based on homeschooling abilities or ministries or flexible income/location jobs.  And if you don’t do something beyond taking care of your child’s basic necessities, then you will lose the debate.

AshleyK- enjoy this time and read blogs like ‘Like Mother, Like Daughter’

the one thing that really depresses me is moms who work 40+ hours at a low-paying job like stocking shelves at the 99cent store. Is that really worth her time, adding in childcare expenses? But she feels stuck.

I was able to get a BA and MA (working full time or more during college, no $ from parents, but I had the advantage of an intact home full of books and expectations)- now I teach 10 hours a week at the college level- but I identify as a homeschooling, SAHM. The extra $ cushion is nice, though.

I think this post is a call for flexibility- and flexibility is there when the marriage is working- even with an increase in telecommuting jobs

AshleyK- I think you’re right. For some reason it still doesn’t feel like it’s ok to “just” take care of your kids. And even moreso, what about when the kids are grown? Is it ever respected to “just” take care of the home and one’s husband? I don’t think so actually. There is definitely judgement on that like the woman isn’t really doing enough. Beautifying the home, making good meals, keeping on top of errands and birthdays and having time for friendship isn’t enough. Even though it’s funny to me because that seems like the dream life many would want to have, especially living in the wealthiest country in the world. But I think many would feel guilty living that life like what they should really do is bring in income.

Michelle, you make a GOOD point.  I would also add not to buy a house that you can’t afford on one income.  I have had some friends who wished that they could stay home after they had their first child, but they had purchased their home based on two incomes and felt stuck.

@AshleyK: I totally agree! I had my first while I was finishing up uni, so I was safe from the “what are you doing now?” question for about 3 months. Once I graduated, I felt like I had to justify staying home and not doing anything on the side. After a year I started discerning going back to school, but God made that decision easy (we’re now expecting another). I’m thinking about postponing indefinitely.  So now I can dodge that pesky and uncomfortable “what’re you doing now?” with “surviving.” I think we have to just start not caring what others think about staying home and “nothing else” because we know a lot more goes on at home when you are “just” taking care of the kids and the house and the hubby.

There really is a serious economic issue behind the “Mommy Wars” that won’t go away even if the chatter does. I am a college-educated, stay-at-home mom of seven. My friends tend to be similar. Our complaint is not with the single mom forced into the work world, but with the “extra-income” mom who is working by choice.

Because our society has shifted to primarily two-income households, the cost of living has risen dramatically over the past twenty-five years to keep up with the financial boon of second incomes. Adjusting for inflation, families of 1950 could thrive on an income level that today’s families are just surviving on. Basic economics tells us that when there is more money to throw around, prices will rise.

Unfortunately, this has had the effect of actually stifling women’s choices, not liberating women as some argue. As cost of living rises to match two-income sending levels, most of us who make tremendous sacrifices already to stay at home will be forced into the working world.  The choices of “Work-by-choice” moms have a direct negative impact on those of us trying to maintain a “Stay-at-Home” lifestyle.

I went to an academic lecture at Notre Dame last week about this very topic. The premise was that the culture wars are, in essence, over. The evidence also pointed to a general liberalization of positions on social issues, save the exception of abortion. Your post is quite timely. Thank you.

“while there are moral absolutes in this area, it’s almost always impossible to tell if others are violating them. We just can’t know those kinds of things from observing someone else’s life—and this is especially true when it comes to modern mothers and their work.”

This simply cannot be repeated enough. This is the most brilliant thing said on the topic of judging other people’s lifestyles in comparison with our own (both in terms of staying at home and discerning family size and childbirth, etc. etc., which are, after all, all related).

I just wonder if all these debates are indulging in a form of covetousness, or reverse covetousness (sour grapes), which is the other side of the coin.

As a former SAHM who now works full-time outside the home, and who has experimented with a combination of the two as well, I firmly believe that if we have made our choices with integrity and if we are truly at peace with those choices, it really won’t matter what others are saying.  I think a lot of the Mommy War dynamic is inflamed by insecurity and defensiveness, no matter which “side” we’re on.  When are hearts are at peace, we will radiate that peace.

@carriekwi, I think you made a very good point. Prices reflect what the market will bear.  Times are shifting before our eyes though. The decline of the great baby boom is now taking it’s toll on the economy.  The baby boomers are now past their prime spending years, so while housing prices will continue to decline, taxes, by necessity will continue to go up, given the ratio of workers to those retiring.  What is sad, is that women can end up being locked into a material loop she wouldn’t normally favor (as several people above mentioned) because a dual income can also mean that a huge chunk of income goes to taxes. It is easy to understand how a woman such as this might by necessity need to limit her family size, like never before.  At the end of the day we must be honest about true material needs, the *quality* of our mothering,spousal love,and what is truly virtuous.  We must reflect deeply, in the presence of God, whom and what we are putting first.

Don’t working women from comfortable homes needlessly take jobs or promotions that could go to men who need a good job to support a family? Whatever happened to the “family wage” ideal to help a working man support a wife and kids?

The family scholar Allan Carlson has drawn out a few very un-PC statements from Catholic social teaching:

In his great encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (1891), Pope Leo XIII declared it “a most sacred law of nature that the father of a family see that his offspring are provided with all the necessities of life.” For their part, mothers were “intended by nature for the work of the home [...] the education of children and the well-being of the family.” Consequently, Leo argued the principle underlying all employer-worker contracts must be that the wage be at least “sufficiently large to enable [the worker] to provide comfortably for himself, his wife, and his children.”

In “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931), Pope Pius XI termed it “an intolerable abuse [...] to be abolished at all costs” for mothers to be forced by their husbands’ low wage to work outside the home, thereby neglecting their natural responsibilities, “especially the training of children.” He added that “[e]very effort must therefore be made” to insure “that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately.” He rendered “merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens.”

@Kevin J:
In Greece, the pensioners and those close to pension recipient ages are rioting because their govt cannot collect enough taxes from those working to support the “retired”.  Problem: for 100 Greeks of grandparent age, there are only 46 grandchildren.
In the USA, our last “fix” of the Social Security system, a bipartisan agreement during the Reagan administration, assumed inter alia that the then birthrate would continue at its then levels.  However, fewer babies are being born to women age 15 to 45 than needed to support the “aged”, if aged equals all those above age 67. 
If a married couple insists on having the latest tech gimmicks, then more income than that earned by the husband may be needed.  Many things considered necessities by the current generation would have been luxuries a few years earlier.
Failure to bear and train children when young may lead to a much later “retirement”, if retirement depended on the government to support you.
TeaPot562

This is precisely how I feel when at the Dr.‘s office they ask what type of work I do or if I’m unemployed.  How does one answer that when I stay home with 10 children?  I guess technically I would be considered unemployed.  The receptionist knows me well and she looked rather uncomfortable when she asked the question.  Maybe they should find a better way to ask some of these questions.

Mature Catholic women and mothers should be able to have a discussion about the appropriateness of professional employment outside the home when raising small children. Making reference to such discussion as “Mommy Wars” seems to me a tactic to silence the discussion so nobody’s feelings get hurt. That there is now the opportunity for telecommuting, and other work from home opportunities, does not dispense with the need for important and nuanced discussions regarding the vocation of motherhood and its compatibility or incompatibility with professional employment, or even demanding apostolate involvement. 

Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all, but we should be able to make comments like: “It is important for mothers of small children to be at home to raise them,” without being accused of being judgmental or small minded. It should be presumed that women advocating such a position fully understand that are making an objective, not a subjective judgment, and that they understand there are situations where women must work outside the home for financial reasons and employment situations that allow women to be present in the home for their children.

What I am tired of is the constant advocating of “I’m okay, you’re okay” and “let’s not make objective statements about hypothetical situations lest someone feel judged or we not be sensitive to the fact that everybody’s situation is different” that has been coming from the Catholic women bloggers. We don’t want Catholic sisters to be at each others’ throats, and we don’t want to be judgmental, but the discussion regarding motherhood and professional employment is one that must continue. Letting ourselves think of this discussion as “Mommy Wars,” even if its to say we shouldn’t be having them, only fosters alienation and incivility.

Suzanne,
Thank you for such a well expressed post. I agree everything you said one thousand per cent.
There has been a lot of sophistry among Female Catholic bloggers lately. Its disappointing.

Aren’t all Moms working Moms? Some have two jobs(raising husband and raising kids). Some have more by having a job that pays in money on top of the other two.

Suzanne,

I don’t think it is about, “I’m okay, your okay.”  It is about each couple discerning prayerfully what they need to do to support their family taking ALL things into consideration.

I’m thankful we have progressed from the mindset of the Pope quoted up there in 1891. (whew!)

I recognize that women form the backbone of many professions like teaching and nursing.  I am so thankful for the women physicians and midwifes that helped to deliver my children.  I believe the growth of women delivering babies has changed the whole experience dramatically for the good in the last 30-40yrs.

I’m grateful to know women who work inside or outside the home for pay and those who don’t.  I see how much they care for their kids and their marriage.

It is ok to challenge each other but ultimately we are not the ones who has the last judgment.

What’s wrong with the quote from Pope Leo?  What’s wrong with saying that mothers are intended by nature to see to the well being of the home and family and education of children?  He didn’t necessarily say that’s all they’re supposed to do.  But aren’t mothers who work fulltime outside the home still involved in the work of the home (educating children, seeing to the well-being of the family)?  I can’t believe that anyone would be offended by that quote, and I certainly hope that we haven’t “progressed” from that mindset.  Nothing like coming to a Catholic website to find Catholics who criticize perfectly good papal quotes…

“Pope Leo XIII declared it “a most sacred law of nature that the father of a family see that his offspring are provided with all the necessities of life.” For their part, mothers were “intended by nature for the work of the home [...] the education of children and the well-being of the family.”

Historically way back then fathers were not deeply involved in their children’s lives.  Fathers worked outside the home and mothers cared for children. I am grateful that in today’s world dads are (or can be…)very involved in home making and caring for children and mothers can also provide for the financial well being of the home.  My father and grandfather could not be present for the birth of their children.  We have progressed and it is good that dads spend time with their kids.  The way my grandparents grew up this was not the case.  Mothers and fathers are both capable of caring for the home and educating children as they are contributing to the financial success of it.  How this plays out in each family with be different.

From my perspective the quote was dated and I’m sorry you find that opinion not Catholic.  It is very Catholic for dads to be involed in the education and well being of their family as well as providing for financial needs.  The Pope’s quote above IMO provided clearly defined roles for men and women and that is why I was critical of it.  I’m grateful that my husband was there for me when I needed him in the middle of the night caring for my babies and he is grateful for the financial help I provide to our family.  Times were very different back in the 1800’s.

His quote said nothing about fathers not being around for the birth of their babies.  That might not have been the norm at the time, but his quote had nothing to do with it.  Saying that fathers should make sure that the necessities of life are provided for their families does not mean that they shouldn’t spend time with their families.  Again, while that might have been the norm at that time, that had nothing to do with his quote.  Father should make sure their families needs are met.  Mothers should see to the wellbeing and education of their children.  That doesn’t have to mean that fathers can’t stay home, and it doesn’t have to mean that mothers can’t work.  A working mother should still be very involved in her family’s/home’s wellbeing and the education of the children (whether they go to school or not), and a father who is home should still be making sure that his children are provided with the necessities of life.  A lot of popes have done and said a lot of stupid things over the years.  But to pick apart a quote like this?  I don’t get it.  And, by the way, I didn’t say you were un-Catholic.  What I was getting at is that there are enough non-Catholics who pick apart and read things into statements by Catholics.  We as Catholics don’t need to join them.  But unfortunately, it seems that there are some Catholics who jump at the chance, every chance they get.

OPC- Actually, from talking to older family members, I learned that dads were VERY involved with their kids in the 1930s and before (Little house books show this too). The stereotype of ‘Dad who goes out drinking after work and then is really distant’ comes from the 1950s. I’ve seen some psychologists argue that’s because most dads of the 50s were actually suffering from PTSD—the war took a huge toll on men of that generation, which made it hard for them to be present to their families. I have high hopes that the ability to telecommute and run businesses from home will bring about a return to the “St. Joe in his workshop” mode of being a dad—home AND working to support the kids.

Also, there were situations in the 1900s where women contributed to the family finances.  Farmer’s wives, for example.

Thanks Dierdre for your experience. In talking with many generations of my family I found that fathers were not involved in the care of children.  None of them went to war or had PTSD but that is a good point to make.  I’m sure it is true for many. 

I have never read any historical information that says men helped run the household or care for children in the 1800’s.  They had to work so ahrd just to meet the basic needs of the family so I doubt it would have been possible.  So that would not have even been on Pope Leo’s mind—it was a different time and society.  Men were not present for births in the 1800’s—women did everything.  Same with my husbands side of the family going back for a LONG time—dads did not father like dads do today. That is just the way it was and I am happy to be part of this generation.  Pope Leo was speaking on what he knew then.  Maybe by the 1930’s men were more involved in some families. In general, Popes warned against women working outside the home.  again while there can be an imbalance women make up the back bone of many vital professions in our society.

Claire, everyone else posts their opinions too. I’m sorry mine has caused you so much distress.  Clearly we have grown in our understanding of the role of men and women.  IMO what Pope Leo expressed was for that time.  That is all I was saying.  Pope Leo said nothing about fathers caring for children or educating them.  Keep in mind we all read with our own experiences and opinions interjected.  I thought I expressed alot of positive things that you did not hear.

I’m not distressed.  And yes, I did agree with most of your comment.  I just don’t think he said anything wrong.  I still can’t understand what is so wrong with saying that men should make sure the necessities of life are provided ;  that statement doesn’t mean that they can’t be involved with their kids.  And saying that women should educate their children doesn’t mean they can’t do anything else.  Of course I’m glad that times have changed since the 1800s (although I’m not happy that it has changed to the point where now it is often necessary to have a dual-income household, because this ends up limiting women’s choices rather than expanding them).  But I still don’t think that pope said anything wrong.  I would have no problem with someone making those exact same statements today.  It would be another story if they said that women should only focus on things of the home.  That I would have a problem with.

Claire, I agree.  There is nothing wrong with what the pope said, and it does still apply to our time.  I made a comment on this same post the other day saying that my own family was considering a job change for my husband that would involve the whole family.  We would start a family busisness which my husband would run.  The children and I will help with it.  My husbands main role will still be to provide for the necessities of his family, my main role will still be to care for the family.  I think Dierdre is falling into modern stereotyping with the roles the pope quotes.  Also, just because someone’s grandparents say that their husband didn’t help out, etc. doesn’t mean that’s how it was everywhere!  For the most part Men were present to their families far more in the past then they are now…I would classify the past for this discussion as pre-industrial revolution.  I heard someone (I can’t remember who right now) say that the industrial revolution took men from the home and the feminist revolution took women from the home.  We need to get both back in the home.  Look to the Holy Family for the best example!  Also, look into distributism, a very Catholic economic philosophy that aids in allowing these natural roles the pope speaks of to be fulfilled.

Sorry, Deirdre, I meant the commenter “on other people’s choices” was stereotyping, not you!

Totally agree, Michelle.  Having read historical biographies such as Little House on the Prairie, Caddie Woodlawn, The Great Brain, All of a Kind Family, etc during my childhood, my impression is that many fathers were very involved in the family in the 1800s and early 1900s.  This is also consistent with how my mother and grandmother (born in 1912) have described their fathers’ roles in their families.  As far as improvements in childbirth, historically babies were usually delivered by female midwives.  Once the venue switched to the hospitals, reforms by men such as Lamaze and Bradley have helped hospital births return to more natural formats in which the husbands are involved.