C
Crescentinus
Guest
I’m good.
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
As an example: I mean that, unlike barring blacks from combat for instance, barring women from combat is not a boundary that is pulled out of thin air. It is an accomodation of a real difference between a clear (I would say vast) majority of men and women, a difference that has real logistical consequences.
To be equitable, however, if women (or any other group) are barred from combat, they ought not be penalized in their advancement because they never served in combat, not unless the advancement is to a position that actually requires combat experience. They ought to be treated like the men in the military who, for instance, turn out to be color-blind or something like that. Someone who is barred from serving in combat ought not be treated like someone who has avoided serving in combat or otherwise failed to make use of opportunities to make a particular contribution that would be considered in determining their merit.
In World War II, women were needed as pilots, because there weren’t enough men to fill the need. They weren’t used as combat pilots, but it was recognized that they were more than capable to serve where they did were, and in fact many distinguished themselves. Consequently, women became military pilots. The problem was that among the best opportunities for a pilot to advance in the ranks was in the fighter squandrons, where even the best female pilots weren’t allowed to serve.
I mean that if you’re not going to allow women to be fighter pilots, they don’t deserve to be treated like men who avoided serving as fighter pilots. Having not volunteered for that shouldn’t count for or against them, because it was not their doing one way or the other. Otherwise, it is hard to argue with women fully capable of acting as fighter pilots that they aren’t being discriminated against. Either let them advance as the men can, or give them compensation for the added boundaries under which they serve.
I don’t want to open up the whole pilot question, but just to say that is the kind of thing I mean…that is, where there is a boundary put into place for a group for just reasons, there needs to be recognition of what the full consequences of that boundary are for individuals serving within those boundaries.
N
Nec5
Guest
Um, if you read the original post; you know the one that defined the thread, it actually mentions feminism or “feminist propaganda”. Therefore talking about feminism and exploring it in detail (positively or negatively) are not derailing.
But I guess any kind of criticism is a no no in today’s world. Unless of course, it’s criticism of age old Biblical values.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Mickey,
Cordial greetings. Well spoken, my dear chap. Jolly good retort.
The Christian religion has always emphasized, contrary to what some men assert nowadays, the true dignity of womanhood and motherhood, and let us never forget that. It is an indisputable fact that the example and teaching of Christ has lifted women in one country and society after another to a position that they did not occupy previously. Whereas in many of the religions of the world, not least in Judaism and Islam, women have a far more inferior place than men, Christianity emphasizes that men and women have a perfect spiritual equality in Christ (Gal. 3: 28). Nevertheless, as Holy Mother Church wholeheartedly devotes herself to Christ, so a married woman accepts her place in the family and devotes herself exclusively to fulfilling her divinely appointed function of being both wife and mother (Titus 2: 5, “workers at home”). The fact that this does not sit comfortably with the present generation’s obssession with the emancipation of women and their place outside the home in every sphere of life that men occupy, does not render the immutable truth of Sacred Scripture invalid and irrelevant. Moreover, the Catholic Church has never *officially *declared as part of its ordinary or extraordinary magisterial teaching that this teaching is no longer valid or applicable, either implicity or explicitly. Moreover, even in the case of ordinary magisterial teaching, it must reiterate the constant, consistent and universal teaching of the popes and bishops down through the ages.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Nec5,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear, nicely put that last sentence and so very true, dear friend. Good observation.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Feminist haters?
M
Mickey
Guest
Wonderful post. That sums it up nicely.
M
Mickey
Guest
Bravo! I find it interesting that any conversation of the evils of radical feminism…sometimes gets perceived as an attack on women.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Just because something is mentioned in the OP doesn’t mean that a full on discussion of it isn’t derailing the thread. This thread was set up for investigating the differences between men and women, in particular, whether women are weaker than men. How does a discussion of feminism fit into this? it doesn’t. It is a different topic deserving of its own thread which has begun to derail this one.
B
Baelor
Guest
The Church does not specify what the function of wife and mother is vis-a-vis holding a job/amount of time spent at home.
M
Mickey
Guest
I beg to disagree. The OP completely lends itself to a discussion about radical feminism.
N
Nec5
Guest
Since you obviously have not read the original post, here it is
The questions mention various contexts and specifically reference feminism as one of those contexts. The original poster thought it mattered. Most of the posters afterward thought it mattered. It fits into the discussion because feminism has interwoven itself into our very society and must be confronted to answer the question of “are women really weaker than men in a Catholic context?”
In some cases, feminism is considered positive because there is now a generally held belief that women should not be treated as luggage or property. That plays into whether women are “weaker” or not. In other cases, feminism has done great harm in equating women to men or men to women. We are equal before God, but that doesn’t mean we are all the same or have the same roles.
What if someone made a thread about murder and mentioned abortion as a possible example? Would we be wrong to argue the abortion topic or must we somehow ignore that and only focus on “murder”? Of course not.
Sorry but this is internet forum rules 101. The original post sets the standard. If you don’t like that standard, start another thread where you don’t mention feminism and only limit the topic to things you wish to discuss.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.
With a text such as Titus 2: 5, the Church hardly needs to spoon feed married women on whether they should devote themselves exclusively and wholeheartedly to being wives and mothers, dear friend. A biblically informed Catholic who has not suffered as the result of poor catechesis will know, or should know, their duty in such a matter.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Mickey,
Hello again.
Yes I disagree also, I think the OP does invite legitimate discussion of radical femenism, given their remarks. At any rate, it is a topic that is perfectly germane to our present debate and, indeed, most naturally arises out of it, in my opionion, old chap.
Goodbye for now dear friend and all other contributors to the thread - my supper is ready.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
W
Walking_Home
Guest
As was prior pointed out to you – in the thread below – You display a protestant “sola scriptura” view.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=665661&page=7
T
thewanderer
Guest
I realize the OP sets the standard. However, from reading the OP it is pretty clear that the intent is to discuss to how men and women compare to each other. Yes, feminism can bbe pertinant to tha discussion, but only so long as the discussion of feminism remains in the context and ordered towards the original question. In other words, by saying that you disagree with radical feminism because it does not recognize the real differences that exist between men and women, then yes, that is on topic. However going on about how all the evils in the world today are caused by radical feminism and arguing about whether or not this is the case is off topic.
To get back on topic, I am going to repost a response from a previous thread I started asking about where I can find works on the psychological differences between men and women.
J
JacarandaPurple
Guest
I must be Biblically ignorant and poorly catechized then, as I work full time.
Couldn’t be that I decided to help my husband support the family so he could get out of the military so he could actually stay home and be a father, or anything…
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is exactly what I mean by there being no middle ground to stand on any more.
Either men are greedy self-serving b*****ds whose violent thoughtless destructive and power-grabbing nature can hardly be contained even with a majority of women in power (who of course are naturally selfless and have the unique bodily function of producing profound wisdom every time their mouth opens, if they are only freed to realize that), tight legislation, the vigilant work of a legion of aggressive attorneys, and an endless amount of aggrieved picketing or else the radical feminists are trying to take over the world and turn the world’s men into a bunch of meek valets robbed of their masculinity and chance of achievement by a bunch of bitter man-hating prunes…and everybody on each far end of the fight is confident they alone are “doing God’s work” and praying for the Holy Spirit to come in and sweep it all clean.
I get so sick of it, I could scream. It saddens me to see how many of the faithful are on one of these extremes or the other.
Are women weaker than men? Who knows. The one thing for certain is that there is plenty of human frailty to go around.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Greetings, Portrait! Long time no see!
I don’t mean to provoke, but your comment above prompted a question: do you not seek the services of any married professional women? That is, do you make a point to not have a married female physician? If you send your children to school (vs homeschooling), would you require that their teachers be single women? (Or, of course, male of unknown marital status).
And not to get too farcical, but this is an honest question: if you’re in line at the grocery store do you seek to find a male cashier or a single female cashier in order to not promote the idea that you believe any married woman who’s working has not contradicted the Scriptures. (Sorry for the double negative.
)I ask because I wonder how, in today’s society, you can profess the above and attempt to live it.
It would seem impossible to me, but perhaps you have found a way to do so?
- Status