"Warning: feminism is bad for your health"

SEE THE ARTICLE Warning: feminism is bad for your health:

For both sexes, gender equality in managerial positions was associated with lower life expectancy.

The scientists said possible explanations for the correlation is that men's health may be adversely affected by a loss of what had been seen as traditional male privileges. Women's health, meanwhile, could be being damaged by greater opportunities for risky behaviour as a result of increased income, along with stress from longer working hours.

We live in a disordered society, so it is not surprising that sickness, the disorder of the body, should increase.

It is claimed by feminists that the traditional division of labor between men and women is due to male domination keeping women down in a Marxist class struggle. We should note that the Church does recognize a power imbalance, as we read in Genesis about Eve's punishment:

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

But equality between men and women has always been a Christian doctrine, and therefore to correct some of the consequences of the Fall of Man in Genesis, the Church has encouraged men to defer to women and not to use force on them.

Feminists claim that men and women are equal and that therefore there is no difference between them. Male chauvinists claim that men and women are different and so men are better than women. Both the feminists and chauvinists make the same error in believing that differences in kind mean differences in value. The Christian understanding is that men and women are different, but have the same value. This is common sense to everyone but university professors!

The traditional division of work reflects the sexual differences between men and women, including both material and spiritual differences. Male workplaces strongly differ in organization, environment, compensation, and requirements from female workplaces, and these differences flow quite naturally from sexual differences. This system works quite well for most men and for most women, but not for all, which is why we have so many problems today.

The feminist revolution in the 1970s attempted to destroy the distinctiveness of male workplaces for the sake of egalitarianism. The first change was overturning laws and customs that restricted certain jobs to men only; since this led to workplaces with very many men and often few women, this had to be backed up with draconian laws punishing sexual harassment. The second change was economic: the policy of equal pay for equal work.

"Equal pay for equal work", although egalitarian and popular, has enormous social justice implications. The encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, which encourages a living wage, is defeated by this kind of equality. The concept of a living wage states that one worker ought to be able to completely provide for a large family, have security in retirement and against disability, and that it is the duty of the employer to pay accordingly. Therefore, a middle-aged man with wife and children ought to be paid more than a young single woman without dependents, as a matter of social justice. A woman with children and no husband ought to be paid more also. Likewise, a man near retirement ought to be paid far more due to his long loyalty to the employer and his need to support himself in his old age. This apparent unfairness in wages was summed up in the phrase "You gotta pay your dues". The ability of an employer to give more compensation to someone based on their need as the head of a family, or as a reward for long-term loyalty is completely gutted by the new system. This in turn leads to calls for greater government involvement in the economy, by providing welfare to families and by old-age pensions. The current conception of a "living wage" is met merely by manipulation of the minimum-wage law, which is completely unsuitable to the needs of families and is unfair to employers.

The new system tends to reward a few elite women with high-paying jobs, while depressing the take-home wages of the bulk of workers. It also forces a larger percentage of the population into the workforce, which is disastrous to family life. But this system is good for both big business and big government, for revenues increase dramatically. The new system also tends to throw out older workers who may not be as productive or as up-to-date as their younger competitors.

The old system, which relied on marriage for the support of women, did not work for the feminists, who tend not to be suited for marriage. Likewise, boredom among ordinary women, due to small family size, makes working outside of the home also popular.