Women in the Workforce


Full-time stay-at-home mothers were the norm throughout the first 5,900 years of man’s existence. Today, they’re an aberration. Some call this progress, but this writer does not.

An anecdote to illustrate. A dear female friend spent many years prior to her marriage pursuing a professional career. Marriage was actually delayed for this purpose, but eventually the time did come. After marriage, thoughts naturally turned towards children, but the decision to postpone was inevitable. Children would be detrimental to the professional career. Children are less important than a career, apparently.

How many times does this sad story repeat? How many children are not brought into this world on account of women having professional careers? Men cannot pick up the slack in this department. A man can (and must) have a career to support his family–and he can do this while still fulfilling his parental duties. But only women can have children. Only women can be the mother that every child needs. This is literally a full-time vocation, and very rarely is it conducive to a professional career.

The world needs more children, and only women can bear them. Every child needs a full-time mother, and only women will do. Because of this, every woman intending marriage must be ready to subject her desire for a professional career to the infinitely higher vocation of bearing and rearing children.

Disagree? That’s of course to be expected. But pray, do tell why.

3 thoughts on “Women in the Workforce

  1. I don’t think you’re being entirely fair. Women can get married without becoming mothers, such as St Cecilia, and have a holy union. A good number of people get married knowing that their spouse or they themselves are unable to have children, and the church doesn’t ban their union because of that.
    I also don’t think that it’s wrong to postpone children in pursuit of a career, if the career you’re pursuing will do good for others. For example, if a woman was a doctor and had a good deal of patients depending on her, then to postpone having a child until a later time wouldn’t be wrong.
    Not every marriage has to bring forth children. If a woman is doing good in the world and would like to continue it for a while until the time was more convenient, I don’t think it’s that bad.

    1. Hey friend! Good challenge. Of course I have absolutely no problems with a married couple agreeing to live as brother and sister in a childless yet holy union. That is a very noble thing indeed! In that case, I have no objections with the woman pursuing a professional career provided she does so in accordance with the Church’s teachings.

      I suppose I should have clarified further and said that women intending marriage and children must ready to subject a professional career to their higher vocation of motherhood. Would that be satisfactory in your eyes?

      If a woman wants to postpone children in order to good, fine–but then don’t get married. If you’re not ready to have children then you’re not ready to be married. I do not believe the Church would approve a marriage where the couple intended to delay children for any reason. The primary essential purpose of marriage is the procreation of life, and to contract a marriage with the idea of postponing the fulfillment of this purpose would be a terrible abuse of a God-given institution.

  2. Not to mention that “postponing” children usually means she won’t have any in the end. You can’t fight biology…women’s fertility declines drastically after 30 or so. Feminism with its vile lies has done a great harm to women, causing millions of women to end up living miserable, unhappy and unfulfilled lives (because the truth is, having a “career” instead of children and a husband does not make women happy – with a few rare exceptions perhaps).

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s