Fix the family: six ways to say a woman needs to be at home making babies.

Here is an article from Fix the Family, a Catholic organization, on the six reasons you shouldn’t send your daughter to college.  It’s long and must really be read to be believed.  My favorite comment on the article was this one, which pretty much sums up the whole piece:

So, please, what is an 18yo girl to do then? Bag groceries till a prince charming comes along to give a few kids?

That pretty much sums up the whole article.  Although, Kaorus Negisa had a pretty good one on my facebook when I posted this article:

“You believe in oppressing women. False. The Church teaches that husbands and wives are of equal dignity, but with different roles.” And women’s role just happens to be to be told what to do by men. See? Totes not oppression at all! God is so dreamy.

It’s just horrible.  Ironically, it starts off by boasting of how logically airtight the coming arguments are:

…the rejection we receive is always emotionally charged and ends up insulting, since once explained logically, the opposition runs out of substance and is only left to hurl insults and presume and misconstrue this practical wisdom into some chauvinistic evil.

Here are some choice excerpts (but really, they only scratch the surface):

College and education have very little to do with each other.  College has become more of a training ground for a job.  Let’s be clear:  college graduates receive a diploma, not necessarily an education.  Many wise people in years past obtained great educations by seeking knowledge from books and good material.  Today, anyone can learn anything they want with the vast library system across the country and with the easy access of the internet.  So the real reason girls go to college is for a degree, not an education.  I strongly believe girls and women should be educated, first and foremost in the Catholic faith.  If we look COMPREHENSIVELY at the Catholic doctrine, we’ll see very little that promotes a woman working outside the home.

If college is so useless, why is the title of the piece “6 Reasons not to Send Your Child to College”?  The message seems to be that college doesn’t provide an education, so only your sons should waste four years of their lives.

We believe in women making wise prudent choices for themselves.  The indoctrination of the feminist culture and the practicing of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle severely cloud, practically blind that good judgment.

Yes, even though having consistent sex has been shown numerous times to contribute greatly to good psychological health (what with it being a huge part of our biology and all), ignoring the relevant science and abstaining from a perfectly enjoyable experience (unless you’ve gone through the proper, church-appointed ritual) because a guy who rose from the dead 2,000 years ago will be mad is the very embodiment of good judgment.  Makes sense.

The very next few sentences are:

Getting a college degree often makes a young lady feel an “obligation” to use it, to make money.  Often her husband doesn’t want to see it go to “waste.”  So the degree is what actually traps her.  Not having a degree frees her to enter into a marriage with proper roles in which her husband will provide for her and their children.  Christian marriage by definition does place her in a submissive role to her husband, but no one forces anyone to marry anyone.  She should go to the altar with full knowledge of what she’s entering into.

We believe in women making choices for themselves, as long as they’re choosing to be a stay-at-home mom.  If they go getting degrees like men, they might think they could be the bread-winners or even, *gasp*, that they don’t want children – and those are choices Fix the Family doesn’t like.  When they say “Fix the Family” I think they mean “fix” as a synonym to what you do with your cats and dogs…

The most mind-boggling reason (which is saying something for this article) was number 3:

She will not learn to be a wife and mother.  Nothing that is taught in a college curriculum is geared toward domestic homemaking.

Which, of course, is what all women want to do.  You might as well point out that majoring in music won’t provide you with knowledge of astrophysics.  So fucking what?  Not every person is interested in the same stuff.

Do you women who don’t go to college attend some magical other school that teaches them about being a wife and mother?  You know how to be a wife?  Don’t change.  Just be the same person the dude fell in love with such that he wanted to marry you in the first place.  There’s no one proper way to be a wife, since we all have different things that make us happy/fall in love.

And as for being a mother, kids don’t come with instruction manuals.  It’s something you learn as you go, and women who attend college are able to read the same parenting books as women who didn’t.  In fact, women who attend college are probably going to be better at finding books with reliable information, since that is a skill you pick up in college.

Reason #4 isn’t much better:

The cost of a degree is becoming more difficult to recoup.  Like anything that is subsidized by the government, the cost of a college degree is inflated.  That being the case, it can often be difficult or impossible to get an adequate payoff for the investment.  The most common example of that scenario is the job of a school teacher.  More commonly now we’re seeing situations where not only is the income not enough to support a family, but many are strapped with student loan debt.  Add to that the possibility of not even being able to get a job with the degree and you have economic disaster for a family before they even get started.  It makes much more sense for a young couple to have a husband with a skill that brings value to the marketplace that has reasonable compensation to go along with it and a wife who is willing to be frugal especially during the early years of starting their family.

That sounds like a terrible idea!  So terrible that only men should get to enjoy it.

The whole article is ridiculous.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Loqi

    College has become more of a training ground for a job. Let’s be clear: college graduates receive a diploma, not necessarily an education. Many wise people in years past obtained great educations by seeking knowledge from books and good material. Today, anyone can learn anything they want with the vast library system across the country and with the easy access of the internet.

    These points are at only partially true, unless you’re you’re the kind of person who thinks “anyone” only refers to middle or upper class Americans.

    If we look COMPREHENSIVELY at the Catholic doctrine, we’ll see very little that promotes a woman working outside the home.

    This, on the other hand, is 100% true.

    • Brendan Liam


      • Smudgeface

        Well, this is awkward. You’re arguing against a strawman here, the OP never said that the bible encourages equality.

      • woofa

        Both of your posts here rave on and then end prematurely. I think that says it all. I thought for a moment I knew what you were saying here but after reading your other one I think you need to work on your communication a great deal.

  • unbound55

    “College has become more of a training ground for a job. Let’s be clear: college graduates receive a diploma, not necessarily an education. ”

    To be fair, a number of colleges are becoming this way…mostly those whose primary offerings are over the internet.

  • R Vogel

    I have a very religious family, and they constantly talk about how ‘college’ (which few of them have attended) just teaches people to abandon their faith. I have always found it curious that the response it “Don’t go to college’ rather than critically looking at why education erodes faith. Probably too much to ask…

  • baal

    If nothing else, a college degree from an accredited institution is the ticket to better and higher paying jobs. I know they don’t want women to have those options but myself aside, an anti-harm society has to have options for women to leave bad household circumstances and having a college degree (let alone the education) helps with that.

  • ZeldasCrown

    Are there problems with our higher education system? Yes. Are there school doing a sub-par job educating their students? I’m sure there are some. Is the cost of a college education skyrocketing out of control at many schools? Yes (at the school I attended, tuition was probably at least $10,000-$15,000 more expensive in my final year than when I started). Are many graduates struggling to find jobs that pay more than their monthly student loan payment? Yes.

    However, the solution to many of the problems facing higher education isn’t to only send men to college. All of the arguments presented here as to why women should stay home (as relates to education) could easily be turned around to advocate for men to not attend either. Some weak arguments all around.

    • GCBill

      Yes, especially to your 2nd paragraph. It’s a pretty clear case of ad hoc reasoning, in which people with prior doctrinal commitments make up “rational reasons” for believing something. They don’t actually hold their position for those reasons, but they hope a well-meaning reader might fall for them. They’re like stickbugs on the tree of knowledge and reason.

      • Brendan Liam

        How is it an ad hoc explanation GCBill, or more specifically-what do you think an ad hoc explanation is? I ask as it’s impossible to claim it’s in Zelda’s 2nd paragraph. She offers no causality between an event and an explanation (the only requirement of ad hoc really,and thus applies to almost anything, so long as it’s an expanation). But Zelda didn’t do that, she rejected an ad hoc explanation of fix the family and goes further to point out the fallacy. It’s several, but I’ll do the strawman for now: The argument requires a strawWOMAN actually in that in between the lines, it quaratines woman to a small box, and sets man, sin and all, free to practice dominionism (you know, rape, murder, theft, etc. the type of stuff Yahweh gets excited about). It would be hard to read a sentence of the article and not find a fallacy from what I see.

        Lastly, you argue cowardly. You blather a bit, and clearly try to pull a reversal on Zelda (women), but fail miserably and due to your fear of boldly asserting an argument, you never made it to the podium and lost by default-better than on your lack of merit I suppose. But either say something definitive (like Zelda did) or STFU.

        • GCBill

          Wow, this is the dumbest response I’ve received in a good many months on any forum. I was *agreeing* with his/her point, and calling the logic of FtF “ad hoc reasoning.” Hence why I referred to “doctrinal commitments” – that was (what should have been) an obvious reference to Catholic doctrine. Fortunately there are 5 actually-sentient beings (including ZeldasCrown) who understood what I meant and liked my post. You, on the other hand, actually have the nerve to call me a coward based on your shallow, inaccurate reading of my post. So I’ll gladly oblige you and “say something definitive” – you’re a fucking moron.

          • Brendan Liam

            What’s dumb is assuming the mistake is mine. I read your post five times, there is only way to take it, read it yourself in the key area, where you define a subject and dont tell us when changing that subject, see here smart person:

            “Yes, especially to your 2nd paragraph. It’s a pretty clear case of ad hoc reasoning,”

            Your subject is defined as “your 2nd paragraph”, clearly meaning the 2nd person-zelda. Then you say “IT”, and according to any English book, the “IT” here MUST refer to Zelda’s 2nd paragraph, what you CLEARLY reference by IT”.. Any argument to the contrary requires assumptions you’ve no right to expect, or it requires psychic ability.

            Previous attack withdrawn, now that you’ve said what you MEAN, and only because your audience forced you to see how it looks. However, I’m happy to debate this since you call me dumb and yet the confusion YOU CAUSED was not based on basic rules of English, very ambiguous, not clear at all due to your overuse (I assume with good reason ) of the word, “it”. A very poor practice if you just defined it as the opposite of what you mean it to be in the next sentence lol.

            “IT” doesnt mean shit, and “IT” Sure as hell needs to be reported whenever it changes to meaning a different “IT”. So Maybe instead of saying “It”, consider your audience and SAY what you fuckin mean.

          • GCBill

            You conveniently isolate the first two sentences from the rest of my paragraph, which reveals the true context of what I meant. Looking back, it is clear to me that I did indeed misuse the word “it” in my second sentence. The very next sentence begins with “they,” however, which cannot possibly refer to ZeldasCrown. For some reason, you take “they” to refer to ALL WOMEN, instead of assuming that it was my use of “it” that was mistaken. This hypothesis flat-out ignores most of the relevant data – the initial “yes” of agreement, the absence of any mention of women in conjunction with “they,” and the fact that the post makes NO SENSE taken as an assault on women. Five other people managed to correctly infer what I had intended to say. You’re the odd one out here, buddy.

            I made a grammatical mistake. You ignored the context of my blunder within the paragraph as a whole, resolving it into the least charitable interpretation possible. An interpretation that doesn’t square with the rest of the post, or with others’ responses to my post. So yeah, I’ll spend more time with an English textbook, and you can spend more time honing your deductive reasoning (and perhaps critical thinking skills in general).

          • Brendan Liam

            Also, to clarify GC, as you may miss it-being the only person to truly understand your remark: I understand it looks like an agreement up front, by use of “Yes” However, again, since you perfectly violate the rule on the use of “it”, upon taking that seriously, which one should-the rest still makes perfect sense, just appears to be tongue in cheek-thus the accusation of cowardly-which I withdrew.

            At this point, if you don’t see my point, I’d only accuse you of having a full cup, the inability to self reflect, arrogance. But not yet, as only time will tell :)

          • GCBill

            This comment is an absolute butchery of the English language. You’re upset that I misused a pronoun when your sentences are barely readable. Please go away.

          • Guest

            Welcome to the internet, you’re obviously new here.

            Also not upset you missed a pronoun, just pointing out you’re freaking out over misreading something. Then when it’s pointed out to you that your reading was wrong you’re resorting to attacking peoples English. It’s weird that you’re getting so defensive but kind of amusing. I’ll put some popcorn on.

          • Smudgeface

            Um, hey, just jumping in to say you did actually read the comment wrong, Brendan. I’ve re-read it several times and it’s agreeing with her. The way I read it initially, and can’t see any other way to read it tbh, is “It’s” is referring too FtF’s argument, and “they” is FtF. Otherwise the rest of the comment doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps it wasn’t written entirely clearly but this is the internet. People jot shit out on the fly.

            Also you should probably consider taking a deep breath and relaxing a little. Don’t take simple misunderstandings over the internet so seriously. Just saying.

          • jch

            I heart you Smudgeface. I was late to this party and scrolling down seeing only GC and his nemesis Brendan trading comments started to despair that I might be the only one to understand what GC was really referring to in his first of this long long set of comments

            You have restored my faith in teh internets. Thanks.

            A very short aside to poor GC: less is more and trolls are trolls. Less reaction to trolls like Brendan of course. Not that I think you would be confused by my sentence construction <3

  • smrnda

    The problem with getting an ‘education’ from reading at the library is that it’s likely to be broad instead of deep, unfocused, and to have lots of gaps in it. I’m all for independent learning, but there’s something to be said about experts coming up with a curriculum to make sure that you get an education that both hits most topics you need to know in sufficient depth so that you can be informed.

    There is a problem with college just being vocational training since it leaves out things that go into being a well-informed citizen, but there’s also room to criticize an education that doesn’t enable you to earn a living. A solid education should do both, since both are really possible.

    I’m also not really sure that in this day and age, when kids spend a decent chunk of the day in school that stay-at-home moms are really that necessary in most cases. I’m not saying that it’s bad for women to stay home, just that it doesn’t appear to always be needed. I see plenty of 2 income families where the children aren’t neglected and where both parents are involved in their kids’ day to day lives.

    • Mary C

      I spend most of my time as a “stay at home” mom even though my daughter goes to school from 8am-3:30pm. I work about 16 hrs/wk as an RN. What this enables me to do is really be involved in my community.

      For example, I am her girl scout troop leader. I have 18 girls, and I am the only mom of the 18 who was willing to commit to this. Last year, one group of 2nd grade girls went without a troop because we couldn’t find a leader. :( I would say that is a consequence of most families having two parents who work full time. No those girls are not neglected, but did they miss out on some really valuable experiences by not being involved in girl scouts? Absolutely.

      I am also our PTA Vice President – again, there were not multiple people clamoring for this role. Out of a school of 500 students in a solidly middle class community, we had two empty PTA executive board positions last year.

      I truly believe that if you want real community, you need people willing to invest time in it, and that usually means someone has to sacrifice some time at work.

      • Gitte

        I fully agree with you. It comes down to choice. Both men and women need to know that there is a community outside work and family that they should contribute to in anyway they can.

        • smrnda

          Thanks for making the point of a community outside of work and *family* – there’s a high degree of insularity in American discussions of family life, as if the notion of being part of a community rather than an isolated nuclear family is a bad thing.

        • Brendan Liam

          Personally I find the “Choice” argument not only completely worn out and overly obvious but in reality, in the end the “Choice” offered by feminism is precisely what maimed it. I am not talking about abortion-that’s definitely a choice issue that is HONESTLY a “choice” of women and rightly f’n so.

          However, you, like, me, like everyone, including and in some cases especially feminists, have the slime of misogyny in our minds. Do you think a christian stops being a chrsitian when they reject the god and proclaim atheism? In a simple world, like Pascal’s or any christian’s mind, in their required simplicity and one dimenionalism, it seems like the answer is “yes”. But it isnt-they stil exhibit nearly EVERY sign of being a chrsitian when they switch to atheism. They are still arrogant know it alls on the topics they know nothing of (mostly religion, as they use that word and only know chrsitainity, Hitchens was a great example, the atheist fallacy of strawmanning religion, pretending religion is chrsitainity, it isnt, its so many things you could never have a full cup on the issue-yet these atheists, the chrsitian atheists, have fuller cups than they did as christians. THey are just like them, and just as dishonest on the same topic (religion) and STILL WONT SHUT UP ABOUT JESUS!!!!

          So… what does that say about a woman who suddenly switches to feminism (and its no less or more sudden that a religious shift), it says it’s likely her worldview has changed up to the lines it was offered in the literature read. And it’s true, I see it in women, including feminists all the time. So I laugh everytime a woman especially mentions something about how they’re done, or like “I thought we were supposed to be equal now” etc……

          Laws dont change morality, religion does. Unfortunately in the US, 4/5 of us operate in the framework of christainity which to an unprecedented scale throws personal responsiblity out the window, solidifies misogyny through fear and other dishonest, lowdown tactics that certainly explain the RCC’s clergy problem. It’s a scumbag organization which means its apologists are dung beetles at best.

          This one does not come down to choice. And this is obvious. So, what does falsely calling the roadblocks “choices” do? It first devalues the REAL choices offered by feminism-like abortion. Abortion is special in my mind as its the only issue really where the issue has to do with something a woman is 100% sovereign of-her uterus. (thus this applies to birth control also). All the other issues are hazy, because they dont really pinpoint inside her body that way. Where they do find the issue, they find a very sneaky, confusing battlefield that feminism never handled-as feminism by nature REQUIRES misogyny-thats how it limits itself.

          I have good reason for saying that, and you should be able to tell that I clearly believe in equality, and do so way better than feminism of ANY type would allow. My philosophy is over 2000 years old, and has always said men and women are equal, really that all life is equal. My point isnt to pimp a religion (the one dawkins, krauss, hitchens have been too busy to debate with, which is strange since this religion always solved its problems with debate) but rather to explain that feminism cannot lead to its stated goal of equality. If you look hard enough at any definition of it, you’ll see why. It by design HAD to implode. So when it stopped moving, which isnt good for a movement (chuckle), women never said “hey, what shoudl we do now? its not moving anymore.” Instead they fell back on their docile, quiet role of compromise and denial, and parrot each other (like christians talking about how good god is) in the remainder of feminism, which is “choice”. Remainders are fine in long division… but the movement that says “equality” must know-when it achieves it is when it quits looking. Feminism is DESIGNED to keep looking, so it will miss the turn off.

          I hope, with my wife to change this soon, and bring what is missing-men. And surprisingly what they can offer is the most important step in gender equality. The key here, is that men must see it on their own, out of a combination of true love for a woman, and true belief in equality. And when a feminist reads this and has foul emotions, she (or he) has PROVEN my claim of inherent misogyny in feminism.

          • Megumi Itou

            Religion and laws just guide the direction of HOW human beings shall live together in one society.
            Your philosophy is one sided and blind, I’m sorry – 2k yrs? Only? Oh dear, you trashtalk about things you barely can understand.
            Feminism never stopped, as humanity never did. Learning, thinking, making up your mind and to change your point of view is part of the human nature PLUS it worked long before your “philosophy” stepped in. No no, just do keep ignoring the facts that don’t fit in, that’s normal if you’re to blind to see… Of course everyone who’s telling you, that your point of view is twisted, is proving you that you’re right, because you couldn’t deal with anything else.
            I don’t see how education is bad for woman… Many great scientist have been female… It’s rather ignorant to believe that an educated woman isn’t fit to be a wife or mum, or that she has to stay at home (for whatever reason).
            I have studied, I’ll never stop to gain knowledge and expierence, plus I’m a wife who knows how to handle the household and I’m a mum and my kids do love and adore me. I’m also a friend and my beloved does see me as his best friend, his lover, his safe haven and his wonderful woman. I don’t see what is wrong with that, as I do earn much more money than he does… on the other hand, I’m lucky enough to be a German, where religion doesn’t mix in with the government and equality isn’t limited to paper.

          • woofa

            Wow, you are off the hook. You clearly fail to understand much but try to write like you are intelligent. It’s one thing to have a great vocab, it’s another to actually understand using it and the concepts you’re trying to go on about.

      • Timothy Fak

        Maybe so, but why does that investment have to fall back on women alone?

        As an aside, there are people would couldn’t care less about things like scouts or PTA, so I guess responsibility for maintaining them does fall on whatever group of people deem them important.

        • Mary C

          When did I ever imply that an investment in children or community should fall back on women alone?

          Keep in mind that my original reply was written in response to the idea that stay at home moms might not be needed once children are school aged. Obviously I spoke of my experience as a woman, but purposely used “people” when talking about investing in community. I wrote to point out that there IS still valuable work to be done even though the children are not home the entire day.

          And as to your aside: I feel like you’ve missed the point of my reply. It doesn’t matter what particular activity or group you are talking about, the point is that if people are all wrapped up in their professional lives, they have less to invest in their children and their community.

          And generally, its not that people are hermits and don’t care about having their kids involved in anything anyways. There are 18 girls in my troop…18 parents who DO care about their girls being involved in Scouts. But how many of those take time off work to lead a troop, or even help out at meetings? Same could be said for every activity the PTA sponsors at the school, or you could fill in the blank with anything – Little League, swim club, 4H, whatever – lots of people like the benefits of having _______, they are just counting on someone else to do the work.

          • Timothy Fak

            So basically, you’ve got 18 parents or sets of parents who want their kids to be involved in scouts, but make no effort to actually see that there are scouts. In my book, that’s a pretty clear indication that they either don’t care all that much, or at least care a great deal less than people like you. It was not meant as a disparaging comment, You clearly want scouts enough to put the work in, others don’t, but may take advantage of it if it’s there.

  • texcee

    I went to college because I was (and am still at 60) an energetic, intellectually curious woman. I was a straight A student in high school and soaked in knowledge like a person dying of thirst who has found an oasis in the desert. I read voraciously, mostly science books, biographies and histories. I have written a family history and am working on another. I didn’t go to college to get a MRS. degree although I happened to meet my husband in a college class. I have worked my entire adult life and have traveled extensively. And guess what? Not only can I bring home the bacon, I can fry it up in a pan, as the old TV commercial used to say. I am a mother and homemaker and going to college didn’t impair any of those abilities. I am Woman. Hear me roar!

  • Jasper

    ““You believe in oppressing women. False. The Church teaches that husbands and wives are of equal dignity, but with different roles.” And women’s role just happens to be to be told what to do by men. See? Totes not oppression at all! God is so dreamy.”

    Uh.. yeah.. that’s oppressing women from leaving their pre-defined gender roles because of what equipment they happened to be born with. Both men and women are people who deserve to live their lives how they see fit.

    [Edit - maybe I should read more than the first sentence before going off on a tear]

  • katiehippie

    “Not every person is
    interested in the same stuff.”
    The way these things are framed is that men are ‘people’ and women are ‘women’. Women don’t get to be ‘people’. Women can only be interested in certain things. People can be interested in anything.

  • Justin

    This is absolutely disgusting. It’s all code speak for ‘The Bible says women should always be barefoot and pregnant, ready to -give- sex to their husband at a moment’s notice, and obey everything he says.’

  • Terry Williams

    So, let me get this straight they said, “She will not learn to be a wife and mother.” As if those are life requirements that are mandated. Getting married and having kids are completely optional.

  • FlightedChemist

    Let them go to college, but discourage further education. I was a good Catholic through my undergrad degree, but the dirty liberal Tier 1 research institution that is giving me a PhD proves all those points absolutely correct. Except the going into debt point- they’re paying me to be here!

  • Laura Cordova-James

    As a professional stunt/actor and friends with other professional stunt woman athletes, how insulting this article is. I raised a family successfully and my daughters are now independent young adults. This particular faith and group of people should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Paula M Smolik

    “If we look COMPREHENSIVELY at the Catholic doctrine, we’ll see very little that promotes a woman working outside the home.” Well, one true statement buried in a mountain of cowshit.

  • Timothy Fak

    #$%^ like this makes me glad I’m a well lapsed Catholic.

  • Anneke Oosterink

    You’ll never pay off your loans, so only men should study so they can provide plenty of money. Yeah that reasoning is airtight right there. Cause for guys colege is free and women will never find a job to pay back loans ever.

  • Cad

    From a Catholic point a view : this is the reason why so many people get “away” from Church. Sad to see someone writing such stupidity. This is not Catholic, its some fanatic with no sense of the world we live!

  • Debbie Anderson

    But they forgot the number 1 reason you don’t send your daughter to higher education … because she will develop aspirations and hopes and get it into her pretty little head that life could hold more for her than staying at home and squeezing out as many little good catholic footsoldiers as her body can handle!!! Shame on them for missing that one!

  • lapis

    ‘……if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent In the country, you’re not going to get too close to the top..’, Bill Gates

    Sadly a lot of Americans work hard to make US a second class nation: