Rerum Novarum only has one sentence on the matter: "Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family" (RN 42).
(NB: "home-work" is a category that in a rural setting used to include running the dairy farm, making all the clothes the household needed, and generally having the skills of six to ten trained careers today).
Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI, 1931) clarifies that women can and ought to work if the men of their household do not make a sufficient wage, but that this is an injustice to be remedied, especially since women tended to be abused in factory workplaces. It does not exclude professional work so long as it does not cause harm to the family. (QA 71, 135).
Centisimus annus (John Paul II, 1991) only cites a difference in "type and duration of work" (7) and the difficulty of all needing to work in third-world countries (33). He goes on to praise the work of female religious in hospitals and education in particular (57).
I see no support for your assertion that "Women definitely shouldn't be in the trades," unless you assume that the trades are implied by the vague category of "certain occupations" -- which, it would seem by the word "certain", is actually a limited set. The assertion that they "generally should not have working careers" is only supported if it is taken for granted that they have a husband who makes a sufficient wage to support the family. As this second condition is not met in many households worldwide, I would say it does not apply as a general principle at this point in time.
Yes also literal “cottage industries” like lace-making, making matchboxes, growing and picking flowers for all those crazy Victorian and Edwardian hats. Labor that was paid for but done by women and small children at home. Modern e-commerce and mommy-blogs fit right in.
Yes, JPII focuses on the need for men to have work that pays enough so that their wives who are bearing and raising children do not have to work outside the home. The focus here is on supporting the community of the family, not on whether women should or should not engage in work outside the home.
Much of the social doctrine from the 19th and early 20th centuries was dealing with the cruel and highly exploitive behavior of those running industries in the "Second Industrial Revolution", who allowed dangerous conditions with long hours.
I agree with trade schools for men simply because the goal is to develop skills in trades that pay enough for a husband to provide for his family so that his wife does not have to work outside the home, which is a tenet of Catholic social doctrine.
The problem for you is that QA and CA both place several major conditionals and caveats around women working outside the home. It is not anything close to a carte-blanche approval. In no way does RN, QA, or CA endorse anything even remotely resembling our modern system of total emancipation of women into the workforce, which is (in actuality) a *condemnation* of women *to* the workforce. And in fact, women in the labor market creates and exacerbates the problems of male income-earning that you and Pius XI allude to, since flooding the labor market in the 1960s-1990s with now double the amount of eligible workers crashed wages. This stagnation of wages has now mandated a dual-income household, and is a leading reason for the decline in marriages among Millenials/GenZ, and thus has also destroyed the birthrate and the possibility to raise families (which, in turn, increases support for abortion and birth control). It destabilized the marriage pool by having women become high-earners yet still have a preference to date and marry men who out-earn them. It destroyed the remaining healthy gendered spaces for men that existed in the second half of the 20th Century. It destabilized families by removing the time children spend with their mother. It subjugates women, but instead of being subjugated to a husband who has sworn before God to love and serve her, the woman is subjugated to a man who employs her and sees her as no more than a disposable business commodity. Sexual Assault (both in and outside the office) exploded since women entered the workforce, and adulterous extramarital affairs also skyrocketed. No-fault divorce became cemented in society since women could now work and support themselves.
Women have always been workers in the home, hard workers even (especially in rural, pioneer, and/or provincial life) that at times step up and manage the affairs of their property in the absence of husbands. And women held great positions of authority in society, since women were the ones who ran all the social benefit and relief organizations, on the local and national level, even in their highest leadership positions. The American Red Cross was a *women's organization*; being a man in Red Cross leadership would've gotten you weird looks, as running the Red Cross was "women's work." Men worked careers so that women were unburdened and able to devote themselves to the higher societal endeavors. The "cottage industries" were small-scale community-focused self-driven endeavors, very different from modern schlock, from 50s Tupperware to 2010s MaryKay, which still subject women to large corporate structures overseeing them.
The total emancipation of women into the workforce is entirely divorced from, and inherently opposed to, a Catholic anthropology and the social order of Christendom. 50 years on, it has wrought almost nothing except social, economic, and political ills. We think women working is the solution to current problems, when in reality women working created these problems in the first place.
Women in the workforce, abortion/birth control, and no-fault divorce are all interconnected, and each only exists today because of the other two. Catholics oppose the abortion/birth control, we oppose no-fault divorce (well, sort-of, but not really)... but when it comes to women in the workforce, Catholics suddenly become ardent apologists for the secular worldview. All three are wrong.
Sorry this is so long; it's one of the few things where I find people are so wrong on this that it takes several paragraphs to lay out everything all at once.
I read the sections of the encyclicals, and quoted directly what they say on the subject. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of the social issues at play, nor their consequences; however, your original comment of "wait until you hear what Rerum Novarum has to say..." was off-base. Rerum Novarum did not, in fact, say much on the subject. You may notice that I included the caveat from QA that the need for women to work *is an injustice*, including the abuse issue. So, no, that's not a problem in my post: I recognize both those issues.
A similar line is taken in Gaudium et Spes: "The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account" (51). Furthermore, the Council writes, "Women now work in almost all spheres. It is fitting that they are able to assume their proper role in accordance with their own nature. It will belong to all to acknowledge and favor the proper and necessary participation of women in the cultural life" (60). The concern of the Council is not that working women should be abolished, but that working conditions should not be detrimental to the family.
I am not sure further conversation on this idea will be fruitful, as solving the majority of your objections would require a wholesale revision of the Western economic system. I am perhaps too small-minded, or too much of a pragmatist, to argue what ought to be the case in a system that does not presently exist. I can only read the text of the Church's teaching and apply it to what I see concretely in the world today. If any of the relevant paragraphs directly state what you think they do, please quote them to me. Until then, I will take the Church's texts as of greater teaching authority than a random person on the internet (and yes, I do mean that with all the humor and goodwill appropriate to this comment section!)
Sherri - I would also love to see more options like this for women, but given that it's only starting with 26 students, it made more sense - gives them a chance to figure out what works and doesn't work while simplifying one element at the very beginning. (And I say that as a woman with a career in historically male-dominated, challenging, and on occasion physically dangerous places - I'm all for women using their talents however they think God is calling them to)
When there is sufficient demand for it. A lot women prefer to be teachers or nurses rather than chippies and sparkies.. been that way for centuries too. Women's-only professions, such as midwifery have been around for a lot longer.
Even in the most 'gender equal' societies like Sweden have had to introduce quotas to ensure better 'gender parity' in teaching, nursing and midwifery (for example). Boys need male teachers, and hospitals need male nurses. Midwifery, I would leave as a female-only profession for obvious reasons but what do I know...
More than there has been. And trades themselves are shifting with new technological developments that reduce the ‘hard yakka’ dimension of various trades making it sustainable for more women. However, my cousin, hardly a girly girl, and daughter of a builder had a hard time with her apprenticeship with the physicality of carpentry. She had a couple of narrowly avoided catastrophic accidents which happened towards the end of long days when she was tired. The Chippie who took her on, was disappointed that she quit. She was conscientious and wanted to get it right. He rarely had to ask her to redo work. He also recognised the physical toll of the work on her, and he couldn’t change that! She’s since shifted to project management (which she is very good at, no thanks to her knowing how building sites work) instead of being ‘on the tools’ and is a competent hobbyist carpenter. I know plenty of female hobbyist mechanics who are as good as men in a workshop, but they all laughed hysterically at the thought of doing it full time in a workshop- they liked cars too much to be dealing with Joe Public’s daily drivers and the grind of engine maintenance for people who can’t change a tyre.
Are you going to pay for it? Cut the folks some slack. The demand is 10x greater among men for this offering, and funds are extremely limited. If they had a 150 million gift to start up this college, I'm sure there would be an offering for more niche groups instead of simply targeting the 90% who want this.
I specifically mentioned the 90% who want training to be plumbers. Sure, there are the 10% of women who do, but they are rare, and they usually don't last long. My sister's friend became an electrician. She was out within 5 years due to injury. The work was too physically demanding for her, and electricians have pretty cushy jobs compared to most of the skilled trades. I honestly felt badly for her, because she needed the money, and it was a good job.
Instead of running around crying about "discrimination" show me all the women who want to be hod carriers? Do you have statistics on that? They aren't 50% of applicants. They aren't even close to that. Women who want to work physical jobs in all sorts of inclement weather are a small minority of job applicants, and even when they do sincerely want to do the work, it is often too physical for them, leading to injuries and a much higher attrition rate than for men.
Which is why I asked you to do the work yourself and post some statistics, if you deny what I'm saying. It's common sense that most people who want to work in the trades are men. Everyone who works in these fields or knows people who do knows this. Your demand is like someone who lives in a cave demanding that others post scientific proof that the sky is blue. Get off your couch and go visit your local machine shop or construction site. Talk to hiring managers at construction companies, if you don't believe what I'm saying. Just don't gaslight people like me with working class backgrounds and family members (e.g., my son) who work in the skilled trades about what we know to be true. You are positing that women demand to be hod carriers? Show me the proof! You probably had never even heard that term before today.
God bless all hard working people. I simply posted a question wondering if women were welcome in these new trade programs. You're correct that I don't know much about the trades. I grew up on a farm shoveling cow manure, watering hogs, repairing equipment, walking beans, and all other work that needed to be done, and not once did my parents exclude me from learning new things because of my gender.
A good friend of mine was a hod carrier, and I wasn't even born half a century ago. So, yes, they still exist today, and the phrase isn't dated. Your lack of knowledge of the trades doesn't make the experience of myself and my friends invalid.
Since you refused to cite statistics, I did your work for you. Only ~10% of people in the construction trades are female. Of those, 40% have *office* jobs. Only 2% work in actual production jobs (e.g., carpenters and the like). Seems like the actual statistics you demanded back up my assertion.
"Despite the growth seen in recent years, not all women who work in construction are doing tasks that require physical labor. 40% of women in this industry hold management and office positions, while 2% work in production, transportation, and moving materials. "
Honestly, I don't think the above person is a good journalist and is mixing statistics. I doubt that 0.2% of the construction workforce is female (2% of ~10%). I think 2% is probably the overall number, heavily weighted toward young women, most of whom later drop out. Again, if you know a lot of construction workers and have known female construction workers, you know that a big reason for this attrition is injury. Also, these jobs aren't flexible at all, and moms tend to want flexibility.
No one has said they are to cater to women. The point is that people should be hired and trained based on their interest and qualifications, not gender, religion, race etc.
Data might well show that very few children of two college educated parents are interested in the trades. That is no reason to bar such people from training opportunities when they come forward.
Kurt, read the post. Sherri complained bitterly that women were not able to attend this "residential college." When only 2% of people in the skilled trades are female (no, office workers and people who hold signs directing traffic don't count in this context), that is a massive investment for a niche group. To expect such an investment to be made by a startup college which hasn't even proven that it's model is viable is unreasonable. All I asked for was for people to cut them some slack, given the fact that they are a brand new startup, and meeting the needs of 2% of the trades instead of focusing on the 98% is unreasonable.
At least give them a chance to prove that their model of a trade school is viable before criticizing them for not catering to 2% of the workforce doing actual construction.
Again the term "catering." No one suggested that. It was just suggested that applicants be chosen on merit rather than all-male. Most often, a larger student body provides cost savings.
I never demanded anything, I asked a simple question as to whether women were welcome in these programs. I never mentioned statistics, you did.
Sorry I didn't respond more quickly, but we had a storm last night, and I was out with my chainsaw helping my neighbors with fallen trees. This afternoon I'm going to bake bread. Call me a member of a niche group, and God bless all people who do manual labor.
Sherri, I never called you a member of a niche group. You aren't a female construction worker.
You asked whether women are welcome in a startup trade school and suggested that them not being accommodated spoke ill of the founders. All I asked was that you either make a business case for others doing so or put your time and money where your mouth is.
Last weekend I was teaching my daughter to change the oil and air filters in her car. It's great that she can learn to do such things, but it doesn't mean she is actually capable of becoming a professional mechanic anymore than you helping to clear a few trees makes you fit to be a professional lumberjack. My daughter couldn't even loosen the drain bolt without assistance. She was learning how to do something that she is physically incapable of without the assistance of power tools or men. There's nothing wrong with her lack of physical strength. It's just foolish to pretend that the job of auto mechanic is something she and others like her should consider.
If a Catholic woman wants to learn a trade, I would earnestly suggest "software engineering." It is more compatible with raising children because you can write software from home. You cannot plumb from home.
There’s nothing wrong with having a men’s school. We’re at an odd cultural moment where men aren’t allowed to associate in an exclusively male environment. It seems to be part of a societal trend to encourage androgyny. There are many ways in which it is appropriate and good to acknowledge what the sexes have in common, but what we really need right now is an appreciation of the unique gifts of each sex.
Everyone enjoy your weekend; I’m going to kick all the men out of my house tomorrow while we ladies have a baby shower :) It’s great to be a woman! Sometimes it involves cutesy things, but it’s part of the bedrock of civilization.
Especially in a small environment like this, it would seem that having a sense of fraternity would be part of the appeal. Whether we are comfortable saying this or not, we need more female and male specific spaces in our society. People can be weird about it of course(taking it to extremes in either direction), but it doesn't make it not true. A small liberal arts/trade school seems like the ideal place to have that.
I would also wager the applicants would naturally self select to be majority male anyways so it honestly would be a moot point.
Agree with you. No reason these young men can’t date (or be taught the art of courtship) and learn about human dignity in romantic relationships while at this school, too. (I’m not familiar with the area, but surely young men will find young women, if they still make young men like they did when I was “young”.)
I really like the idea of the men getting spiritual formation from Norbertine brothers as well.
Seriously? That was your first thought after reading this? There is a currently a crisis in the formation of young men in our society that is in no small part due to the breakdown of the family and the increase in fatherless homes so that they have no good role models of masculinity. If you were paying attention, it was clear that this was not just a trade school but was also designed to aid in the positive formation of virtuous men, which is an entirely different enterprise from forming virtuous women, hence the single sex focus. If this was your primary takeaway after reading this article, I would suggest that you read Feminism Against Progress by Mary Harrington. She is one of the most insightful writers of today and in her book she delves into the roles of men and women in historical societies and how modern feminism has impacted those relationships to our detriment.
Paprocki did not exclude the possibility of someday admitting women — though such a change, he said, would bring additional logistical hurdles to overcome, like dormitory space. But he also noted an acute need to form young men.
“Young men face a particular challenge in terms of, ‘What is the role of a man in our society today?’” he said.
“So I think that it’s important that we give some specific focus to that question.”
There is nothing on the application website for the College of St. Joseph the Worker that limits its student body to men - if you know a young woman who is interested and would be a good candidate, please encourage her to apply, Sherri!
(Having attend the somewhat-relate New Polity in Steubenville in late May, I expect that there will be more men interested in the College of St. Joseph the Worker than women - but I hope that some women will undertake these studies.)
The College of Saint Joseph the Worker in Stuebenville, Ohio is doing this as well (except you get a Bachelor's instead of a Associate's), and is beginning studies/training for its first graduating class this fall. I know the folks there, and I highly support their efforts.
I want both institutions to grow and thrive; this is a VERY important and critically pressing need that these two institutions are addressing. I cannot understate how crucial this is. Young Catholics need another option to provide economic and financial security for their eventual young families, and our communities need skilled intelligent tradesmen (who could otherwise go to university and succeed there), and we need an off-ramp from becoming increasingly dependent on the mass employment of destructive and exploitative mega-corporations that actually hate us.
Do you want the kid who was too dumb to go college to be the one who installs the plumbing in your house? The standardized test scores for the inaugural class at the College of Saint Joseph the Worker are all at least in the 90th percentile.
Bishops should be openly supporting and donating to this.
And yes to your point on the false idea that dumb people are consigned to a life of labor. There’s a fantastic video on Youtube from the 1950s/60s of a stoutly thick-accented NYC cab driver who, when filmed at a round table discussion of a proposed city regulation that would affect the cabbies, spoke with better vocabulary, clarity of thought, and articulation than most people coming out of your average 4-year-college business degree.
This is for me one of the most hopeful things happening in the Church today, and in education more generally. Schools like this answer so many different convergent needs of the Church and the country today. The only thing I'd like to see more of at these schools is education in agriculture. There is an agricultural revolution needed in this country and around the world, and Catholic educational institutes are the perfect ones to lead the way.
This would be a great idea for the Gary diocese to use that $150 million for. Imagine if an old industrial city like Gary became the vocational technology capital of the US, essentially pumping out plumbers, HVAC techs, and carpenters for the rest the US.
That would be a bold plan. My only concern would be whether the relatively brief time that the diocese has been given to spend the money might not be long enough for them to be confident of ongoing sustainability before the gift money runs out.
This is so wildly important. St. John Bosco would be pleased - may he bless their efforts. I'm gonna donate, and I hope other priests (and bishops!) will do the same. I hope the USCCB will throw some lip service their way too...
An initiative was organized St. Mary’s alum Jake Hummel (a union electrician who is today the leader of the Missouri AFL-CIO) and St. Mary’s Principal Mike England, who decided to go one step further than career days and actually set up a pre-apprenticeship program in the building trades to offer as an elective to students.
Interested students received their gear, such as steel-toed shoes and hard hats, participated in the same basic safety training that union construction workers receive, then had an opportunity to visit the training centers run by each trade (e.g. carpenters, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers) and try their hand at the work. On graduation they will have a leg up in the competitive process of securing an apprenticeship in the craft of their choice and starting a successful career.
More information is on the Catholic Labor Network's website.
So, Catholic women are not welcome in these trade schools?
Just wait until you hear what Rerum Novarum has to say about the kind of work proper to, and fitting for, women...
That was from1891, no?
I just like to point out the part of “Catholic Social Teaching™️” that people tend to forget ;)
But yes, women definitely shouldn’t be in the trades. More broadly, they generally should not have working careers.
Rerum Novarum only has one sentence on the matter: "Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family" (RN 42).
(NB: "home-work" is a category that in a rural setting used to include running the dairy farm, making all the clothes the household needed, and generally having the skills of six to ten trained careers today).
Quadragesimo Anno (Pius XI, 1931) clarifies that women can and ought to work if the men of their household do not make a sufficient wage, but that this is an injustice to be remedied, especially since women tended to be abused in factory workplaces. It does not exclude professional work so long as it does not cause harm to the family. (QA 71, 135).
Centisimus annus (John Paul II, 1991) only cites a difference in "type and duration of work" (7) and the difficulty of all needing to work in third-world countries (33). He goes on to praise the work of female religious in hospitals and education in particular (57).
I see no support for your assertion that "Women definitely shouldn't be in the trades," unless you assume that the trades are implied by the vague category of "certain occupations" -- which, it would seem by the word "certain", is actually a limited set. The assertion that they "generally should not have working careers" is only supported if it is taken for granted that they have a husband who makes a sufficient wage to support the family. As this second condition is not met in many households worldwide, I would say it does not apply as a general principle at this point in time.
(edited to fix a typo)
Yes also literal “cottage industries” like lace-making, making matchboxes, growing and picking flowers for all those crazy Victorian and Edwardian hats. Labor that was paid for but done by women and small children at home. Modern e-commerce and mommy-blogs fit right in.
Thanks for your research.
Yes, JPII focuses on the need for men to have work that pays enough so that their wives who are bearing and raising children do not have to work outside the home. The focus here is on supporting the community of the family, not on whether women should or should not engage in work outside the home.
Much of the social doctrine from the 19th and early 20th centuries was dealing with the cruel and highly exploitive behavior of those running industries in the "Second Industrial Revolution", who allowed dangerous conditions with long hours.
I agree with trade schools for men simply because the goal is to develop skills in trades that pay enough for a husband to provide for his family so that his wife does not have to work outside the home, which is a tenet of Catholic social doctrine.
The problem for you is that QA and CA both place several major conditionals and caveats around women working outside the home. It is not anything close to a carte-blanche approval. In no way does RN, QA, or CA endorse anything even remotely resembling our modern system of total emancipation of women into the workforce, which is (in actuality) a *condemnation* of women *to* the workforce. And in fact, women in the labor market creates and exacerbates the problems of male income-earning that you and Pius XI allude to, since flooding the labor market in the 1960s-1990s with now double the amount of eligible workers crashed wages. This stagnation of wages has now mandated a dual-income household, and is a leading reason for the decline in marriages among Millenials/GenZ, and thus has also destroyed the birthrate and the possibility to raise families (which, in turn, increases support for abortion and birth control). It destabilized the marriage pool by having women become high-earners yet still have a preference to date and marry men who out-earn them. It destroyed the remaining healthy gendered spaces for men that existed in the second half of the 20th Century. It destabilized families by removing the time children spend with their mother. It subjugates women, but instead of being subjugated to a husband who has sworn before God to love and serve her, the woman is subjugated to a man who employs her and sees her as no more than a disposable business commodity. Sexual Assault (both in and outside the office) exploded since women entered the workforce, and adulterous extramarital affairs also skyrocketed. No-fault divorce became cemented in society since women could now work and support themselves.
Women have always been workers in the home, hard workers even (especially in rural, pioneer, and/or provincial life) that at times step up and manage the affairs of their property in the absence of husbands. And women held great positions of authority in society, since women were the ones who ran all the social benefit and relief organizations, on the local and national level, even in their highest leadership positions. The American Red Cross was a *women's organization*; being a man in Red Cross leadership would've gotten you weird looks, as running the Red Cross was "women's work." Men worked careers so that women were unburdened and able to devote themselves to the higher societal endeavors. The "cottage industries" were small-scale community-focused self-driven endeavors, very different from modern schlock, from 50s Tupperware to 2010s MaryKay, which still subject women to large corporate structures overseeing them.
The total emancipation of women into the workforce is entirely divorced from, and inherently opposed to, a Catholic anthropology and the social order of Christendom. 50 years on, it has wrought almost nothing except social, economic, and political ills. We think women working is the solution to current problems, when in reality women working created these problems in the first place.
Women in the workforce, abortion/birth control, and no-fault divorce are all interconnected, and each only exists today because of the other two. Catholics oppose the abortion/birth control, we oppose no-fault divorce (well, sort-of, but not really)... but when it comes to women in the workforce, Catholics suddenly become ardent apologists for the secular worldview. All three are wrong.
Sorry this is so long; it's one of the few things where I find people are so wrong on this that it takes several paragraphs to lay out everything all at once.
I read the sections of the encyclicals, and quoted directly what they say on the subject. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of the social issues at play, nor their consequences; however, your original comment of "wait until you hear what Rerum Novarum has to say..." was off-base. Rerum Novarum did not, in fact, say much on the subject. You may notice that I included the caveat from QA that the need for women to work *is an injustice*, including the abuse issue. So, no, that's not a problem in my post: I recognize both those issues.
A similar line is taken in Gaudium et Spes: "The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account" (51). Furthermore, the Council writes, "Women now work in almost all spheres. It is fitting that they are able to assume their proper role in accordance with their own nature. It will belong to all to acknowledge and favor the proper and necessary participation of women in the cultural life" (60). The concern of the Council is not that working women should be abolished, but that working conditions should not be detrimental to the family.
I am not sure further conversation on this idea will be fruitful, as solving the majority of your objections would require a wholesale revision of the Western economic system. I am perhaps too small-minded, or too much of a pragmatist, to argue what ought to be the case in a system that does not presently exist. I can only read the text of the Church's teaching and apply it to what I see concretely in the world today. If any of the relevant paragraphs directly state what you think they do, please quote them to me. Until then, I will take the Church's texts as of greater teaching authority than a random person on the internet (and yes, I do mean that with all the humor and goodwill appropriate to this comment section!)
Sherri - I would also love to see more options like this for women, but given that it's only starting with 26 students, it made more sense - gives them a chance to figure out what works and doesn't work while simplifying one element at the very beginning. (And I say that as a woman with a career in historically male-dominated, challenging, and on occasion physically dangerous places - I'm all for women using their talents however they think God is calling them to)
Not sure how the limited number of students is an argument for not including women.
If it comes as a residential college experience, it’s most certainly simpler to accomodate a single sex than two..
Bingo, even alludes to that directly in this article.
That's an argument used against women for centuries. Make room for us.
When there is sufficient demand for it. A lot women prefer to be teachers or nurses rather than chippies and sparkies.. been that way for centuries too. Women's-only professions, such as midwifery have been around for a lot longer.
Even in the most 'gender equal' societies like Sweden have had to introduce quotas to ensure better 'gender parity' in teaching, nursing and midwifery (for example). Boys need male teachers, and hospitals need male nurses. Midwifery, I would leave as a female-only profession for obvious reasons but what do I know...
Currently, there is considerable interest by women in the trades.
More than there has been. And trades themselves are shifting with new technological developments that reduce the ‘hard yakka’ dimension of various trades making it sustainable for more women. However, my cousin, hardly a girly girl, and daughter of a builder had a hard time with her apprenticeship with the physicality of carpentry. She had a couple of narrowly avoided catastrophic accidents which happened towards the end of long days when she was tired. The Chippie who took her on, was disappointed that she quit. She was conscientious and wanted to get it right. He rarely had to ask her to redo work. He also recognised the physical toll of the work on her, and he couldn’t change that! She’s since shifted to project management (which she is very good at, no thanks to her knowing how building sites work) instead of being ‘on the tools’ and is a competent hobbyist carpenter. I know plenty of female hobbyist mechanics who are as good as men in a workshop, but they all laughed hysterically at the thought of doing it full time in a workshop- they liked cars too much to be dealing with Joe Public’s daily drivers and the grind of engine maintenance for people who can’t change a tyre.
We don't need to feed the fem-trolls, guys.
Are you going to pay for it? Cut the folks some slack. The demand is 10x greater among men for this offering, and funds are extremely limited. If they had a 150 million gift to start up this college, I'm sure there would be an offering for more niche groups instead of simply targeting the 90% who want this.
Could you give me the source for your statistics? I'm not sure how women being the majority of the population is somehow a “niche group.”
I specifically mentioned the 90% who want training to be plumbers. Sure, there are the 10% of women who do, but they are rare, and they usually don't last long. My sister's friend became an electrician. She was out within 5 years due to injury. The work was too physically demanding for her, and electricians have pretty cushy jobs compared to most of the skilled trades. I honestly felt badly for her, because she needed the money, and it was a good job.
Instead of running around crying about "discrimination" show me all the women who want to be hod carriers? Do you have statistics on that? They aren't 50% of applicants. They aren't even close to that. Women who want to work physical jobs in all sorts of inclement weather are a small minority of job applicants, and even when they do sincerely want to do the work, it is often too physical for them, leading to injuries and a much higher attrition rate than for men.
Still waiting on your credible source of statistics.
Which is why I asked you to do the work yourself and post some statistics, if you deny what I'm saying. It's common sense that most people who want to work in the trades are men. Everyone who works in these fields or knows people who do knows this. Your demand is like someone who lives in a cave demanding that others post scientific proof that the sky is blue. Get off your couch and go visit your local machine shop or construction site. Talk to hiring managers at construction companies, if you don't believe what I'm saying. Just don't gaslight people like me with working class backgrounds and family members (e.g., my son) who work in the skilled trades about what we know to be true. You are positing that women demand to be hod carriers? Show me the proof! You probably had never even heard that term before today.
God bless all hard working people. I simply posted a question wondering if women were welcome in these new trade programs. You're correct that I don't know much about the trades. I grew up on a farm shoveling cow manure, watering hogs, repairing equipment, walking beans, and all other work that needed to be done, and not once did my parents exclude me from learning new things because of my gender.
"Instead of running around crying about "discrimination" show me all the women who want to be hod carriers?"
There have not been hod carriers for at least half a century. Jeez. Talk about being dated.
A good friend of mine was a hod carrier, and I wasn't even born half a century ago. So, yes, they still exist today, and the phrase isn't dated. Your lack of knowledge of the trades doesn't make the experience of myself and my friends invalid.
To be a hod carrier, you need a hod, which are no longer made or sold in the United States.
Since you refused to cite statistics, I did your work for you. Only ~10% of people in the construction trades are female. Of those, 40% have *office* jobs. Only 2% work in actual production jobs (e.g., carpenters and the like). Seems like the actual statistics you demanded back up my assertion.
"Despite the growth seen in recent years, not all women who work in construction are doing tasks that require physical labor. 40% of women in this industry hold management and office positions, while 2% work in production, transportation, and moving materials. "
Honestly, I don't think the above person is a good journalist and is mixing statistics. I doubt that 0.2% of the construction workforce is female (2% of ~10%). I think 2% is probably the overall number, heavily weighted toward young women, most of whom later drop out. Again, if you know a lot of construction workers and have known female construction workers, you know that a big reason for this attrition is injury. Also, these jobs aren't flexible at all, and moms tend to want flexibility.
https://www.laborfinders.com/employers/blog/women-in-construction/#:~:text=How%20Many%20Women%20Are%20Working,of%20this%20blue%2Dcollar%20workforce.
Your demand that trade colleges cater to the 2% of women who work actual production trades is silly. That is the definition of a niche group.
No one has said they are to cater to women. The point is that people should be hired and trained based on their interest and qualifications, not gender, religion, race etc.
Data might well show that very few children of two college educated parents are interested in the trades. That is no reason to bar such people from training opportunities when they come forward.
Kurt, read the post. Sherri complained bitterly that women were not able to attend this "residential college." When only 2% of people in the skilled trades are female (no, office workers and people who hold signs directing traffic don't count in this context), that is a massive investment for a niche group. To expect such an investment to be made by a startup college which hasn't even proven that it's model is viable is unreasonable. All I asked for was for people to cut them some slack, given the fact that they are a brand new startup, and meeting the needs of 2% of the trades instead of focusing on the 98% is unreasonable.
At least give them a chance to prove that their model of a trade school is viable before criticizing them for not catering to 2% of the workforce doing actual construction.
Again the term "catering." No one suggested that. It was just suggested that applicants be chosen on merit rather than all-male. Most often, a larger student body provides cost savings.
I never demanded anything, I asked a simple question as to whether women were welcome in these programs. I never mentioned statistics, you did.
Sorry I didn't respond more quickly, but we had a storm last night, and I was out with my chainsaw helping my neighbors with fallen trees. This afternoon I'm going to bake bread. Call me a member of a niche group, and God bless all people who do manual labor.
Sherri, I never called you a member of a niche group. You aren't a female construction worker.
You asked whether women are welcome in a startup trade school and suggested that them not being accommodated spoke ill of the founders. All I asked was that you either make a business case for others doing so or put your time and money where your mouth is.
Last weekend I was teaching my daughter to change the oil and air filters in her car. It's great that she can learn to do such things, but it doesn't mean she is actually capable of becoming a professional mechanic anymore than you helping to clear a few trees makes you fit to be a professional lumberjack. My daughter couldn't even loosen the drain bolt without assistance. She was learning how to do something that she is physically incapable of without the assistance of power tools or men. There's nothing wrong with her lack of physical strength. It's just foolish to pretend that the job of auto mechanic is something she and others like her should consider.
If a Catholic woman wants to learn a trade, I would earnestly suggest "software engineering." It is more compatible with raising children because you can write software from home. You cannot plumb from home.
What if she's a plumber and her husband is at home raising the children?
Then she has already learned a trade. I am speaking to the young.
FWIW, you really likely cannot write software from home while being the primary caregiver for small children
Having to return to work while some children are not yet in school would not be ideal, I agree.
There’s nothing wrong with having a men’s school. We’re at an odd cultural moment where men aren’t allowed to associate in an exclusively male environment. It seems to be part of a societal trend to encourage androgyny. There are many ways in which it is appropriate and good to acknowledge what the sexes have in common, but what we really need right now is an appreciation of the unique gifts of each sex.
Everyone enjoy your weekend; I’m going to kick all the men out of my house tomorrow while we ladies have a baby shower :) It’s great to be a woman! Sometimes it involves cutesy things, but it’s part of the bedrock of civilization.
Especially in a small environment like this, it would seem that having a sense of fraternity would be part of the appeal. Whether we are comfortable saying this or not, we need more female and male specific spaces in our society. People can be weird about it of course(taking it to extremes in either direction), but it doesn't make it not true. A small liberal arts/trade school seems like the ideal place to have that.
I would also wager the applicants would naturally self select to be majority male anyways so it honestly would be a moot point.
Agree with you. No reason these young men can’t date (or be taught the art of courtship) and learn about human dignity in romantic relationships while at this school, too. (I’m not familiar with the area, but surely young men will find young women, if they still make young men like they did when I was “young”.)
I really like the idea of the men getting spiritual formation from Norbertine brothers as well.
Seriously? That was your first thought after reading this? There is a currently a crisis in the formation of young men in our society that is in no small part due to the breakdown of the family and the increase in fatherless homes so that they have no good role models of masculinity. If you were paying attention, it was clear that this was not just a trade school but was also designed to aid in the positive formation of virtuous men, which is an entirely different enterprise from forming virtuous women, hence the single sex focus. If this was your primary takeaway after reading this article, I would suggest that you read Feminism Against Progress by Mary Harrington. She is one of the most insightful writers of today and in her book she delves into the roles of men and women in historical societies and how modern feminism has impacted those relationships to our detriment.
I simply asked if women were welcome.
Direct quote from the article:
Paprocki did not exclude the possibility of someday admitting women — though such a change, he said, would bring additional logistical hurdles to overcome, like dormitory space. But he also noted an acute need to form young men.
“Young men face a particular challenge in terms of, ‘What is the role of a man in our society today?’” he said.
“So I think that it’s important that we give some specific focus to that question.”
There is nothing on the application website for the College of St. Joseph the Worker that limits its student body to men - if you know a young woman who is interested and would be a good candidate, please encourage her to apply, Sherri!
(Having attend the somewhat-relate New Polity in Steubenville in late May, I expect that there will be more men interested in the College of St. Joseph the Worker than women - but I hope that some women will undertake these studies.)
The College of Saint Joseph the Worker in Stuebenville, Ohio is doing this as well (except you get a Bachelor's instead of a Associate's), and is beginning studies/training for its first graduating class this fall. I know the folks there, and I highly support their efforts.
I want both institutions to grow and thrive; this is a VERY important and critically pressing need that these two institutions are addressing. I cannot understate how crucial this is. Young Catholics need another option to provide economic and financial security for their eventual young families, and our communities need skilled intelligent tradesmen (who could otherwise go to university and succeed there), and we need an off-ramp from becoming increasingly dependent on the mass employment of destructive and exploitative mega-corporations that actually hate us.
Do you want the kid who was too dumb to go college to be the one who installs the plumbing in your house? The standardized test scores for the inaugural class at the College of Saint Joseph the Worker are all at least in the 90th percentile.
Bishops should be openly supporting and donating to this.
Yes, the formation is really the kicker.
And yes to your point on the false idea that dumb people are consigned to a life of labor. There’s a fantastic video on Youtube from the 1950s/60s of a stoutly thick-accented NYC cab driver who, when filmed at a round table discussion of a proposed city regulation that would affect the cabbies, spoke with better vocabulary, clarity of thought, and articulation than most people coming out of your average 4-year-college business degree.
With charity, maybe let's not refer to kids as "dumb."
I can confirm that the former apostolic administrator of Steubenville thought very highly of it and supported it. 🙏
This is for me one of the most hopeful things happening in the Church today, and in education more generally. Schools like this answer so many different convergent needs of the Church and the country today. The only thing I'd like to see more of at these schools is education in agriculture. There is an agricultural revolution needed in this country and around the world, and Catholic educational institutes are the perfect ones to lead the way.
God be praised! This is what we need more of.
This would be a great idea for the Gary diocese to use that $150 million for. Imagine if an old industrial city like Gary became the vocational technology capital of the US, essentially pumping out plumbers, HVAC techs, and carpenters for the rest the US.
EXCELLENT idea!!
That would be a bold plan. My only concern would be whether the relatively brief time that the diocese has been given to spend the money might not be long enough for them to be confident of ongoing sustainability before the gift money runs out.
Great idea! We need more creative solutions like this.
This is so wildly important. St. John Bosco would be pleased - may he bless their efforts. I'm gonna donate, and I hope other priests (and bishops!) will do the same. I hope the USCCB will throw some lip service their way too...
There is also St. Mary’s in St. Louis.
An initiative was organized St. Mary’s alum Jake Hummel (a union electrician who is today the leader of the Missouri AFL-CIO) and St. Mary’s Principal Mike England, who decided to go one step further than career days and actually set up a pre-apprenticeship program in the building trades to offer as an elective to students.
Interested students received their gear, such as steel-toed shoes and hard hats, participated in the same basic safety training that union construction workers receive, then had an opportunity to visit the training centers run by each trade (e.g. carpenters, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers) and try their hand at the work. On graduation they will have a leg up in the competitive process of securing an apprenticeship in the craft of their choice and starting a successful career.
More information is on the Catholic Labor Network's website.