Effects of femenism

[awkwardcustomer]

I don't recognise this at all. Alpha men get the alpha women, beta men get the beta women, and it more or less balances out.

That used to be true under the old system, before sexual revolution - top men with top women, average man with average women, below average man with below average women. In other words, assortative mating. This was not only due to Christian sexual morals which prohibited and discouraged from fornication, but also due to the fact that women did not work and were therefore economically reliant on men, so many women had to marry early and settle for average or below average (in terms of attractiveness) men, even if they were not happy about it and not attracted to their husbands. Many of these marriages were out of prudence rather than love - the requirement to "fall in love" as a condition to marry is something new and largely a product of sexual revolution.

Today, women's choices are not restricted neither by social norms derived from Christian morality (feminism and sexual revolution have done away with those), nor by economical dependance on men (women entered the workforce and can provide for themselves). Female sexuality is not restricted anymore and women are free to chase the top 20% men (alpha males). Those men attract majority of female attention and thus have no reason to settle down (except for few and in between Christian alphas), and obviously there are not enoguh alphas to go around for all women. This drives hook-up culture (multiple women flocking to top 20% men), while beta males receive little to no female attention during their early 20s. When women eventually realize in their late 20s/early 30s that they can't lock down an alpha for marriage they eventually settle for one of those betas, but by that time they are damaged goods from sleeping around in their early 20s. In connection with introduction of no-fault divorce and women entering the workforce it results in some 40% divorce rate - women who slept around in their teenage/early 20s are obviously not happy about marrying a beta, and encouraged by divorce laws which are heavily skewed towards women often decide to cash out of marriage, receiving children, house, alimony and child support. Monogamy has effectively been abolished.

As James03 righty wrote, marriage is currently a very bad deal for man from both legal and societal standpoint.

I recommend you read (if you have not) Roger Devlin's somewhat well-known essay Sexual Utopia in Power in which he explains what I'm writing about in wider context:
https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf

Also, Evangelical blogger Dalrock breaks it down really well with data and chronological overview
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/rules-of-the-road-for-fornication/

His comment on the current situation is spot on:

Skip ahead to the generation that survived Y2k.  Women are marrying roughly an additional year later than they did a decade ago, and 7.5 years later than they did in the 1950s.  An 18 year old woman's peers aren't looking for a husband, and neither are the women 2 and 4 years older than her.  The women who are looking for husbands are in a very different life stage than she is, so this removes her sense of urgency. The only thing holding her back from fully embracing the now raging hookup culture would be a strong moral belief that sex shouldn't occur before marriage.  For the rest, why not go after the hottest men they can find?  There will be time to paper it over with stories about college boyfriends later.  Besides, everyone is doing it.

For young betas this SMP is an unmitigated disaster.  Your choices amount to finding one of the rapidly vanishing young women who are looking to marry, learn to emulate the cads, or remain celibate (voluntary or otherwise).  On top of that, courting young women has become outright foolish unless one has a high degree of certainty that she is motivated to marry soon. Young women will gladly accept your quaint offer of gifts, free food, and entertainment, but most won't be on the market for anything serious for many years. Courting older women has the same basic problem, with the additional negatives of them being less attractive and more likely to carry baggage of STDs, be hung up on a past alpha, or raising another man's child.

For players like FFY, this is the time to be alive.  Sexually unscrupulous young women are literally throwing themselves at you, and the only thing you have to worry about are the finger wagging Trad Cons who want to make sure the hos enjoy the ride.  These same conservatives have generally turned their backs on marriage in the past decades, allowing it to become a mechanism to crush honest men.  But even if the Trad Cons hadn't squandered their moral authority it wouldn't deter men like FFY, because he is one of the bad boys women are flocking to.  His bad boy nature is both what makes him attractive to hordes of young women seeking out cads, and also what makes him not care what society in general and Trad Cons in specific think of him.

As you can see, the trend of women having "relationships" with men for an extended period of time has continued in the most recent years data is available for.  Unfortunately, Trad Cons are so obsessed with the rules for the road of fornication they can't focus on bringing us back to a truly moral situation.

So why did men allow women to abandon marriage for the workplace? Blaming the feminists and the cultural marxists is all very well, but these influences are only part of the problem.

There had to have been something in it for men. The promise of unlimited sex without consequences seduced men - betas as well as alphas.

True, but its only part of truth. Yes, some men joined sexual revolution willingly hoping for free sex (which was an illusion - sexual revolution did not lead to more sex, but rather redistribution of sex from beta males to alphas - data shows millenials actually have less sex than previous generations). However, the problem was much deeper. Conservatives were seemingly unable to form a coherent argument against women entering the workforce and higher education (which made feminism and sexual revolution possible in first place) - after all, women claimed that it needs to be done for "equality" and "justice". Men failed to object to that on the grounds of Christian morality and God-ordained gender roles - some perhaps not seeing what was coming, some persuaded by the deceptive arguments of "justice" and "equality". This was men's biggest failure at the time of sexual revolution, and many "white knights" posing as conservatives defend feminism to this day. It also shows that Christianity was already heavily undermined in the West by that time - even though up till the 1950s externally it seemed more or less OK, inside there was already a rot of unbelief and modernity.

Also, I think it goes without saying that feminism/cultural marxism was introduced in an organized manner, orchestrated with active participation of Freemasonry etc.

The argument you are putting forward here comes from Alt-Right and Evangelical sources. Yes, I clicked the links.

It seems to be saying that the only way beta males can find sexual partners is if women have no choice but to marry them. The argument also seems to view marriage as a cattle market, and suggests that most marriages in the past were unhappy because 60-70% of women were forced by societal norms to marry men they weren't attracted to.

It also ignores the factor of religious vocations, as so many of these discussions do. I've heard it estimated that 30% of people have a religious calling. That's 30% of men and women who aren't called to marriage at all. Where do they go these days?

Perhaps a good number of the young men being castigated on Trad threads for not being marriage material, are not meant to be marriage material. And yet they have to suffer that criticism on top of having their true vocation thwarted. And ditto for young women.

But neither the Alt-Right nor the Evangelicals would acknowledge this.

[james03]

Perhaps a good number of the young men being castigated on Trad threads for not being marriage material, are not meant to be marriage material. And yet they have to suffer that criticism on top of having their true vocation thwarted. And ditto for young women.

But neither the Alt-Right nor the Evangelicals would acknowledge this.

It appears you are conflating secular and religious society.  Even Evangelicals have no problem with fornication and divorce, and the Alt-Right is majority secular.  The effects of feminism are MOSTLY felt in secular society, so I'll start there:

Go to a lily white public school football game this fall in the Bible Belt.  During half time you'll get to see the "dance squad" come on.  It will be a large group of girls dressed as sluts that twerk for 10 minutes.  Observe the moms.  They are so proud so many guys are staring at their daughters wanting to f**k them.  The dads will make excuses: "Well, that's teens for you / happy wife/happy life."  What do you think happens AFTER the game?  How about what is going around on snap chat?  Then, guess what these girls are being taught in their classes?  Feminism.  So they are indoctrinated by culture/ parents/ school into the sewer of feminism and fornication.  Now get into the heads of these girls.  What kind of guy do they want to get banged by so they can brag about it on snap chat?

Then these girls go to college, which is even more cultural marxist and with less (zero) supervision.  By the time she graduates, 10 sex partners is a low number.  They then do the feminist thing, fornicating through out.  One day she realizes that the fresh crop of young females is getting all the action so she tries to get married (and she might already be a single mom of a bastard child).  If she is lucky, she'll lock down a schlub, probably some dude with a decent job, divorced at 25, paying child support on a kid.  The now 30 year old fornicator doesn't care, she wants a kid so she can get all the attention on Facebook: "We're Pregnant !!!!".  After a few years she gets tired of the schlub and divorces him for cash and prizes.

On the male side, the WOKE dudes soon realize they are getting free prostitution, and they take advantage of it.  The schlubs get no fornication (even though they want to fornicate), or by chance they get married to a washed up slut who had a large notch count in high school, have a kid, and are divorced a few years later, filed by the wife.

Social media plays a part in this.  However it cuts both ways.  MILLIONS of young lads are learning early on to check out of this rigged game.  Being secular, they use the game as much as possible to fornicate, but they won't get married.  At best they'll have a live-in girl friend for a few years, and a few(?) unlucky ones will father a bastard.  Vasectomy is now a hot topic with young men, by the way.

The result?  The result is that marriage is dying and birth rates among white people are plummeting.  I would imagine that the number of secular kids who spend their youth raised by a two parent family and who are not kenneled in strangercare is now a rounding error.

NOTE:  This is for secular culture.  If you conflate this with Trads, it will make no sense.  I'll post on Trad life next.

[james03]

For Trad men, getting married is pathetically easy.  Basically a man who does the minimum has a high chance of getting married:

1.  Work your way up to 100 push ups per day and 20 pull ups.
2.  Get training so you can support a family: college: computer/accounting/engineering; Trades: diesel mechanic, aircraft mechanic, instrument, electrical.

That's it.  Due to neo Jansenism a proportion of males can't support a family, being trained in what basically qualifies them for lawschool -- which they won't attend.  This means that marriageable men are outnumbered by  females.

Now a lad can do more.  He can do more at working out.  He can work on some interesting hobbies.  He can learn swing dancing.  He can work on how he dresses.  He can work to make friends with a bunch of dudes and learn social skills.

For Trad men these are good times.

[Greg]

"Free prostitution" isn't free.

Paid prostitution is MUCH cheaper.

[Gardener]

Just saw the attached pic.

Whew.

[Rosetti]

If I may once again chime in...no doubt you'll all be sick of me in less than two days' time on this forum...but I hope that my point of view as a young woman in higher education is worthwhile to include in the conversation.

In my experience, yes, there is sexual activity outside of marriage occurring in the lives of high school and college students. However, rarely have I ever encountered a young woman--I cannot speak for young men, having never conversed with any of them on this particular subject--who fornicates with wild abandon, gleefully dancing from partner to partner with no thought for her wellbeing or the long-term impact of her actions. Quite the contrary, actually.

Most young women who do choose to engage in a physical relationship--and that is most certainly not all young women--do so in the context of long term romantic relationships. I in no way mean to suggest that they are making a wise and prudent decision, but I assure you that in almost every single case, they believe they are making a loving decision. They share intimacy with their partner because they are in love. Obviously, being in love is not being married, but it seems both ungenerous and inaccurate to suggest that the majority of young women seek only physical pleasure, rather than equally desiring the emotional closeness they hope will follow in the wake of an intimate encounter. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many young men also, deep in their hearts, yearn for that same emotional closeness, even if that is something that it is not "cool" to speak about openly.

In fact, I think many of young people in these instances do hope that they will marry their partners and remain married for the rest of their lives--I imagine few people anticipate divorce when they wed. They have no interest in notches or numbers, but instead in sharing something special with their partners. Perhaps they also fear losing the relationship if they do not cultivate deep intimacy, both physically and emotionally, and see sex as a means by which this can be most neatly accomplished. Once again, I stress that I am not condoning this choice, but simply trying to shed some light on the motivations behind it. Such actions are nearly always misguided, but their intentions are, in most cases that I have encountered at least, good. I will agree wholeheartedly that we should all encourage one another, and our young people in particular, to seek intimacy in other ways: through profound conversation, shared activities, and other types of quality time spent together.

It also doesn't seem quite right to classify this as a purely modern problem; let us recall that William Shakespeare's wife was pregnant when the couple married (something true of many Early Modern brides), and mythology as far back as humanity's ability to tell stories confirms that we have always found this particular sin to be especially seductive, if you'll pardon the word choice.

We must admit that this is clearly a terribly difficult temptation to overcome and we must seek out better ways to address the problem than calling women sluts. That sort of language is inappropriate and not at all productive and I ask you sincerely to consider removing the word from your vocabulary and speaking with a bit more compassion for your fellow fallible human beings. No woman or man will see any reason to reform their behavior if they are blatantly disrespected by those inviting them to make these difficult changes. Encouraging them to "go and sin no more" is absolutely an expression of God's love, but I think one ought to do so in an empathetic, supportive way.

Regarding your objection to cheerleaders, I suggest that to make sure young women are not likewise tempted, young men should be banned from running about in tight pants and obscene sweat-slicked jerseys, flexing their muscles and kicking balls back and forth. (Your pardon for my satirical response.)

If I may endeavor to "get into the heads of these girls": I am quite sure they want to have fun, engage their bodies in healthy exercise, and spend time with their friends. Their talent, grace, and teamwork are the things that makes their parents proud. I invite you to observe this video demonstrating precisely that, if you'd like:



Perhaps the people who gaze at them with lust should learn to appreciate their athleticism, dedication, and friendship first and foremost, and enjoy their beauty second, and in a respectful way. You yourself suggest that men should get in shape and take on hobbies; these young people, male and female, clearly take their fitness seriously and are having a wonderful time sharing their passion with friends and family.

[james03]

Most young women who do choose to engage in a physical relationship--and that is most certainly not all young women--do so in the context of long term romantic relationships.

Which is why they shouldn't be doing it, and why Christian society was made to protect women from men's natural inclination.  What do you think happens to these women wanting these relationships after 3-4 times being used?

That sort of language is inappropriate and not at all productive and I ask you sincerely to consider removing the word from your vocabulary and speaking with a bit more compassion for your fellow fallible human beings.

Call them whores if you want.  Having compassion for young girls means bringing back a Christian society which makes whoring around a shameful act.

Oh, and can you quote where I referenced cheerleaders?

[Greg]

Most young women who do choose to engage in a physical relationship--and that is most certainly not all young women--do so in the context of long term romantic relationships. I in no way mean to suggest that they are making a wise and prudent decision, but I assure you that in almost every single case, they believe they are making a loving decision. They share intimacy with their partner because they are in love. Obviously, being in love is not being married, but it seems both ungenerous and inaccurate to suggest that the majority of young women seek only physical pleasure, rather than equally desiring the emotional closeness they hope will follow in the wake of an intimate encounter. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many young men also, deep in their hearts, yearn for that same emotional closeness, even if that is something that it is not "cool" to speak about openly.

You had better go to Africa and the Middle East and explain that to the cultures that practice female circumcision.

If females aren't interested in pleasure but just romantic love (a fairly modern idea) there's really no need to mutilate them.

As barbaric as that practice is, I suspect, at its root, there is some basis to it and that pagan women are actually far more seeking of physical pleasure than we westerners realise.

My theory is that our Christian culture (which still persists despite the external signs drying up) has made western women less seeking of physical pleasure, but there are parts of the world which don't have our culture and as we fall back into secularism and paganism; we will see far more women using porn and other stimulants to get their rocks off.  I believe porn use by women is increasing and it is not at all unusual in offices and bars today to hear groups of 20/30 year old women talking/joking about sex/vibrators/masturbation much like men would have talked in the 1980s.  They are about 30 years behind in my estimation.

Not that I have conducted a scientific study.  Just my opinion.

[Rosetti]

James, we do seem to be in agreement that cultivating respectful, selfless relationships is very, very important, and would indeed help lessen the number of divorces and single parents. I hoped only to offer up my own observations of what motivates young people to make less than ideal choices.

I think intention matters because it helps us offer solutions to the challenge: if the issue is purely wild, untamed lust, then the solution might be to lock all young men up in a tower filled with Jane Austen novels until they can learn to employ their impulses in appropriate contexts. (This is purely jesting hyperbole, I assure you...though, truly, nothing says "husband material" like a willingness to engage with the insightful sociopolitical commentary of the finest writer of the English Regency!)

If the issue is that men and women seek intimacy with the opposite sex, but do so in the wrong ways, then the solution is to educate them on what truly constitutes a healthy, equal partnership before and after marriage and offer them sincere support when they struggle to make the right choices.

I hope it will not be considered disrespect that I entreat you again not to call women sluts and whores, nor to call men schlubs, for that matter. Such terminology seems highly uncharitable, and belies your stated intention of nurturing a Christian community. We are doubtless on the same page that it is a true mark of compassion to encourage a stronger societal structure that supports healthy, reverential relationships that lead to marriage for those who are called to that vocation, but making someone feel shamed and ostracized is not nearly so Christian, nor so efficacious, as offering them the chance to repent and change their behavior with the help of an infinitely forgiving God and a loving community that will welcome them home.

Go to a lily white public school football game this fall in the Bible Belt.  During half time you'll get to see the "dance squad" come on.  It will be a large group of girls dressed as sluts that twerk for 10 minutes.  Observe the moms.  They are so proud so many guys are staring at their daughters wanting to f**k them.  The dads will make excuses: "Well, that's teens for you / happy wife/happy life."  What do you think happens AFTER the game?  How about what is going around on snap chat?  Then, guess what these girls are being taught in their classes?  Feminism.  So they are indoctrinated by culture/ parents/ school into the sewer of feminism and fornication.  Now get into the heads of these girls.  What kind of guy do they want to get banged by so they can brag about it on snap chat?

Regarding the cheerleaders, I honestly do apologize if that isn't what you meant by "dance squad"; the two terms were used interchangeably at my school to describe the young women (and sometimes the assisting gentlemen who helped with lifts) who performed gymnastic and dance based routines at pep rallies and games and such.

Greg, thank you for bringing this up. I confess, I have not made a detailed study of non-Western practices either, but from what I gather, female circumcision is dangerous both for the body and the mind and I hope that human rights activists and religious leaders of all faiths continue to encourage a hasty retiring of the practice. I also didn't mean to suggest that women aren't interested in physical pleasure, but I think that desire is often paired with a hope for a comprehensive intimacy that includes physical, mental, and emotional closeness.

Thank you!

[Greg]

Perhaps, but they have being doing it for eons and they have more children than we do.

Albeit that they also shit where they sleep.

If we slip back into barbarism then those nig-nogs are probably going to fair better than westerners, with or without their clits intact.

Romantic love is fine, but if you don't have kids then nature just turns you into worm shit and your legacy is zip.  All one's books and fine ideals don't amount to a hill of beans unless they are acted on.

I'd love to be around when some jungle-bunny, straight off the rubber boat, turns up at the women's empowerment centre just to see how many of them are needed to take the machete off him and kick him to death.  I'll have a long beard by then and be calling myself "Brother Abdul".

[Cantarella]

Perhaps the people who gaze at them with lust should learn to appreciate their athleticism, dedication, and friendship first and foremost, and enjoy their beauty second, and in a respectful way. You yourself suggest that men should get in shape and take on hobbies; these young people, male and female, clearly take their fitness seriously and are having a wonderful time sharing their passion with friends and family.

Men and women live in a completely two different worlds, literally.

As women, male nature is so foreign to us that really, we have absolutely no clue, at least naturally. That is why in the patriarchal society, women were protected by fathers, first, and then husbands. (Or other male authority). Women were protected from other men, but also from themselves.

A woman without protection tends to destroy her life with foolish decisions based upon her emotions and astounding unawareness of the male nature. It is only after Feminism that women's nature has been released, without restrain. I think we all are aware by now of the devastating results of such experiment.

That Feminism has utterly annihilated western women is not an exaggeration.

[james03]

If the issue is that men and women seek intimacy with the opposite sex, but do so in the wrong ways, then the solution is to educate them on what truly constitutes a healthy, equal partnership before and after marriage and offer them sincere support when they struggle to make the right choices.

There is NO equal partnership, even in marriage, according to the Church and the bible.  Furthermore men, especially say from 16-25 have a sex drive women can not appreciate.  They are not looking for intimacy.  I'll spare you the details.

I hope it will not be considered disrespect that I entreat you again not to call women sluts and whores, nor to call men schlubs, for that matter. Such terminology seems highly uncharitable, and belies your stated intention of nurturing a Christian community.

1.  We've tried being nice for over 50 years.  It started with Vat. II (actually further back with the women's vote).  It has been a complete failure and destroyed society.
2. Charity is using what works to stop men and especially women from destroying their lives.  And then there are the poor bastard children.
3.  Schlubs?  What do you think green horns are called when they join all male work crews and get their butts kicked?  Amazingly in a week the green is knocked out of them and they toughen into men, except the schlubs who can't cut it and have to drop out.  Which is why I advise young men to work at male-only work sites.

[james03]

A woman without protection tends to destroy her life with foolish decisions based upon her emotions and astounding unawareness of the male nature. It is only after Feminism that women's nature has been released, without restrain. I think we all are aware by now of the devastating results of such experiment.

That Feminism has utterly annihilated western women is not an exaggeration.

All true, but it gets worse.  Imagine taking what you just wrote, then explaining it to lads 16-25, all about the emotions of women and how to play on it.  To men with a sex drive so strong all they talk about and think about is getting laid.  It's called the internet.  Forums, articles, blogs, and Youtube, all training young men to play on the emotional nature of women.

Furthermore add in Tinder and the other such apps, and men don't have to get married to get their sexual satisfaction.  The only way to stop this is bringing back the shame of whoring around.  Probably too late.  It will take The Comet of Chastisement^(tm) to reset things.

[Chestertonian]

If the issue is that men and women seek intimacy with the opposite sex, but do so in the wrong ways, then the solution is to educate them on what truly constitutes a healthy, equal partnership before and after marriage and offer them sincere support when they struggle to make the right choices.

There is NO equal partnership, even in marriage, according to the Church and the bible.  Furthermore men, especially say from 16-25 have a sex drive women can not appreciate.  They are not looking for intimacy.  I'll spare you the details.

I hope it will not be considered disrespect that I entreat you again not to call women sluts and whores, nor to call men schlubs, for that matter. Such terminology seems highly uncharitable, and belies your stated intention of nurturing a Christian community.

1.  We've tried being nice for over 50 years.  It started with Vat. II (actually further back with the women's vote).  It has been a complete failure and destroyed society.
2. Charity is using what works to stop men and especially women from destroying their lives.  And then there are the poor bastard children.
3.  Schlubs?  What do you think green horns are called when they join all male work crews and get their butts kicked?  Amazingly in a week the green is knocked out of them and they toughen into men, except the schlubs who can't cut it and have to drop out.  Which is why I advise young men to work at male-only work sites.

yikes.  as someone who got married at 21 i'd say that I was looking for intimacy.  Your own mileage may vary but I think it's insulting to men to say that we don't want intimacy during those ages.  Male sexuality is, well.... intense during that age group but like my signature says, we're not Mohamedests who don't believe sexual urges can be controlled. 

[Chestertonian]

Miss Rosetti,

Your avatar image is beautiful.  Perhaps you yourself drew it.

While your prose is similarly beautiful, the message reads like standard leftist ideology.  My read on Church teaching and Scripture is that it has nothing to do with finding personal creativity, uniqueness, identity, or any other buzz word of our times.  It is a message of obedience, self sacrifice, dying to oneself so that Christ can live within you.  The philosophy of the left is completely anathema to Christ and His Church.  I strongly recommend further consideration on this matter.

In the woods is an abandoned house surrounded by a locked gate.  Some people will come across such a lock and break it open - why is this here?  I see no reason for it, let's look inside.  Others will see the house and its locked gate, recognize that things are locked for good reason, even if they themselves cannot discern the reason, and move on.  Some will open Pandora's box, others will not.  What would you do?

Major societal roles and structures exist because thousands of years of experience across billions of souls living in every nation have shown them to be the stable norm.  That some skeptic can look at societal norms as they are and pick around the fringes, pointing out imperfections does not make such a man intelligent.  He is the fool for not realizing the abundant benefits these norms provide.  He is the fool for not seeing that all around him rests on the bedrock of these unchanging societal norms.  This fool cannot see the forest for the trees.

Regarding being an honorary parent to students - such an erroneous thought is from your youthful naivety.  I say that not as an insult.  I remember many naive beliefs I had in college as well. 

I have taught other people's children.  I am raising my own children.  There is almost no overlap between the professional teacher and the parent.  The teacher is a mercenary, no matter how much said mercenary feels emotional attachment to the profession, it is done for paid work.  The children come in, like objects on a manufacturing line, where the teacher does X, Y and Z for an hour a day before passing them off down the line to another teacher, while a new set comes in to be worked on.  This process repeats for nine months until all children are shipped off to the next factory and are never seen again.  Whatever the teacher taught, beneficial or destructive, is no longer the teacher's responsibility.  The teacher will not know what good or evil he has brought upon these children.  The teacher provides the material, grades the work, helps a few select kids (and gets a few special emotional highs), and then moves on to the next set of kids.

The parent's job never ends.  It does not end after breakfast and clean up is done, for then homeschooling begins.  It does not end after the lessons are done, for then lunch must be made.  After lunch is cleaned up and you are thoroughly exhausted for the day, now the children play and make havoc across your house.  One requests a story, the other argues with another, the parent quickly tries to determine the proper action to take - let the children work it out, step in, separate them, say nothing, say something, say what, do what?  Every action taken is shaping the character of these children.  Every action not taken does so as well.  Even when not interacting with the children, every action taken shapes them - is mom or dad working, or watching TV?  Cleaning, reading, cooking, socializing, praying?  Children watch parents every second of the day and they internalize what the parent does.  Then it is time for dinner, what to cook, how to feed them, how to build healthy nutritional habits?  Then the dinner table conversation, what to talk about, focus on spouse or children?  The children make so many mistakes - talking out of line, making a mess, throwing food, being rude, kicking the table - when to correct them, how much to correct them, what should I let pass, am I micromanaging too much?  Then it is bath time and bedtime, this can take hours to do.  Pray, read a bedtime story, worry about the giant list of things you have left to do before you yourself go to sleep, wish you could get them all out of your hair so you can finally get other necessities done and maybe have 15 minutes of break before bed.  Kids come out of bed after the door is closed, scold, lovingly return to bed, only to repeat ten more times, ignore?  What to do, how will this decision influence the relationship between parent and child?  How will it influence the child's obedience to authority?  Flop into bed exhausted, go to sleep, be woken up five times at night by the crying baby, the son who needs to use the bathroom, or the noisy child who woke up when the sun rose at 5:15am and wants breakfast right away.  Get up and feed?  Or punish for disturbing the family sleep?  Is he really hungry, or just building a bad habit and being rude?  Should food be denied to build good character traits or is that inhumane?

And then the day repeats again.  And again, every day, without end, there is never a millisecond of a break.  There is no 3:00 pm bell calling school out.  There is no summer break.  There is no new set of children next year so that I can forget about the ones who failed last year.  As a parent I am fully responsible, and am held before God, for the moral upbringing of the same few children.  Day in, day out, every second of the day.  And when the kids start to grow up I will begin to see the good or bad fruits of my labor.  And when I am old these fruits will bring me much joy or continuous sorrow if I failed to build children of good character.  And when I pass, God will judge me based upon the piety or impiety of my children.

That is the enormous responsibility of the parent.  It has no connection to the professional teacher.  A teacher is not an honorary parent.

You have only written two posts, but from them and your choice of your image, I can tell that you are a beautiful woman (beauty being not just physical).  But I think you have imbibed many a dangerous philosophical outlook on life.  A bad philosophy will ruin a soul, in this life and in the eternal thereafter.

Focus on the message of Christ and His Church.  It is one of self sacrifice of the will, obedience, and personal suffering.  He made man and woman and He made them, in His infinite divine wisdom, different for a reason.  Embrace the reality that Christ has made for us all.

with all due respect, spiritual fatherhood and motherhood are definitely "a thing." Think of all of the orders of priests, brothers and sisters who used to run Catholic schools, often for poor children who otherwise could not afford education.  Were they "mercenaries?"  No, they were spiritual fathers and mothers.  Why do we call St. Elizabeth Ann Seton "Mother Seton?"  Is it because she was literally a mother to her five children?  Is it because she founded a religious order?  Or because she was a spiritual mother to so many children under her care?  Would she have done this if her husband didnt die of tuburculosis?  Probably not.  but she was always devoted to all sorts of charitable works throughout her married life despite raising children.  Sometimes undertaking such works is part of caring for your children--part of setting an example of Christian charity

St John Bosco, patron of teachers, did not see himself merely as a paid mercenary but a spiritual father to the children in his care.  Now the schools are not filled with sisters and brothers and fathers anymore, which is a pity, but when I was teaching i still looked to these examples of Catholic spiritual fatherhood because the truth is, many of my students did not have fathers who cared about them.  I can't take the place of a father in their lives, but I can do what I can.  When I taught at a prep school mostly for wealthy boys (and a few less wealthy boys who came there with scholarships) many of these boys at fathers at home, but for some reason, did not have a good relationship with them.  I think in trad circles, often the idea that "Parents are the first and primary educators of their children" gets interpreted as 'Only parents can be educators of their children."  Children benefit from havings lots of different mentors in their lives along with caring and supportive parents.  I wasn't surprised to find this out but when I started teaching I was really disgusted by how many bad and mediocre parents there are in this world...from the blatantly abusive to the absent parents, the hypercritical parents, to the overbearing neurotic parents, to the parents who spend the entire parent teacher conference complaining about their child.  Often the child HAS problems, but the parent is looking at it as if the child IS the problem.

Maybe it's just my temperament but I do remember all of my failures from when I was teaching.  Hopefully I learned from them.  I have a tendency to remember every single failure.  I do think God will judge how I conducted myself both as a father and as a teacher.

as for kids waking up hungry we have a shelf of the refrigerator and a cabinet with things my son can get for himself along with cups for getting water.  all healthy things.  the only rule is that he has to tell us he is going to eat something so we can give him insulin.  He wakes up in the middle of the night a lot because his blood sugar gets low, thank God it wakes him up.  Our other kid is non diabetic and just gets milk if he wakes at night.  since my wife has an eating disorder i try to make food as neutral as possible and never use it as a reward and punishment.  God gives it to us as sustenance, primarily for nourishment, and He provides us with it regardless of whether we're in mortal sin, or we're holy and devout.  i think for a non diabetic kid it might just be simple enough to say "breakfast isnt until 7 you can either go to bed or play quietly" and calmly hold the limit.

I think the key thing to remember is putting your own children first.  There are a lot of ways to be a good Catholic parent, and yes, some of those ways may involve a woman working outside the home for some period of her life.  I still remember, though, my aunt who was a middle school teacher and won many awards for it.  She was always throwing herself into Jewish charitable efforts and taught hebrew school as well.  She had 5 kids, one has Asperger's and didn't get diagnosed until adulthood.  She carries a lot of bitterness toward her mother for not seeing that she was on the spectrum as a kid.  It would have helped her mother understand her better.  She also has another kid who has learning disabilities that didn't get diagnosed until senior year of high school.  You woult think that having a teacher for a mom would have helped in this regard, but it didn't.  Because she was out to lunch when it came to her own kids and meeting their own educational needs.  So some degree of balance is necessary.  There is the one extreme of staying at home and homeschooling eleventeen children and never having any work outside the home because home is overwhelming enough, or being the out to lunch working mother who isn't meeting her childrens needs.  Being a college professor isn't that bad in this regard--I had a professor in college who wore her baby in a sling while teaching and as she got older would pay students to babysit.  You can set things up so that you're only working 2 or 3 days a week (like my mother does).  But the pay isn't great compared to the money it costs to get a PhD and it may never pay for itself.