Did early church fathers loathe women?

[Jeanne1184]

I think I understand what you are saying but it is difficult because of the disjointed nature of the paragraphs. This world has made a hideous problem for women, it is the world not the Church that has done this.

On the one hand I see women who feel that man is responsible for their feelings of inadequacy, on the other hand I see women, young women who are flaunting themselves like sluts, with no modesty, and having hideous role models doing the same, and then there is the self-mutilating plastic surgery. On the other hand I see women flocking to self-help Evangelical seminars, raising the lioness within but never getting past these seminars.

But yet another hand I do not see these problems arising from men. I see it as woman destroying woman-kind from within.

I can think of a really good role model for women that starts with M.

This world has made a hideous problem for women, it is the world not the Church that has done this.

Sorry for the lack of smooth transition between thoughts; I could see the potential problem but couldn’t find adequate ‘bridges’.

What I’m trying to say is that I no longer blame the world, churches, man, woman, mothers nor fathers (trust me, it was everyone’s fault but mine) … It’s a spiritual problem - my problem - that was acted out/revealed in the world. The world didn’t cause it - Original Sin did.

From the Bible, it appears that the consequences of Eve sinning first were far greater than Adam’s. While Adam’s connection to God was hindered, Eve’s may have been severed or more severely hindered.

Since not all women come to find the depravity in themselves that I found in myself, I can only surmise that ‘spiritual genetics’ of women who have found Jesus/Holy Spirit are changed or ‘passed on’. There are Good women in the world, but I couldn’t find the way to be one of them. The overriding sense that I had in my 20s was, “There is something missing in me, but I don’t know what it is.” I bought every self-help book on the market - to no avail. I could ‘change’, but couldn’t stay changed - something always pulled me back to the bottom. True change must come from understanding the source of the problem (and that didn’t begin to happen until years later in AA).

But I don’t mean to say the problem is in any way wholly expressed in the sexual realm - my tongue was cruel. I had honed sarcasm to a fine blade - and was proud of it. It was in AA that I learned that sarcasm is an outlet for anger - and that beneath it was rage. The Higher Power in AA didn’t remain generic, for me. I came to see that It was the Holy Spirit allowing me to see things differently. “You can’t get sober with the same mind that got you drunk - something New must be added that changes the outcome.”

I agree that some women are their own worst enemy. “I met the enemy and it was within.” But the reason I feel such desire to share my story is to help men ‘wake up’ - far too many are trashing their Soul and feel unthreatened by consequences. I’m heartily sorry for my part of that in the lives that I touched in that regard. I’ve tried to find reasons why men are ‘congratulated’ in ‘scoring with women’ without some sense of wrongness. The only thing ever found in this regard is the idea that men automatically go to Heaven after death no matter what they do here because they are ‘God’s’. However, I think this idea is in error because I’ve seen too many men Transformed in AA to think that Jesus only came to provide a way to let women off the hook of being ‘damned for all Time’.

I know Mary is considered a role model of Perfection but, like Jesus as a role model, imitation is not the answer - we must ‘clean house’ in order to find the Source of Goodness. Seeking Forgiveness/washing the inside of the cup, not just dress up/wash the outside. Today, I know the difference.

Plastic surgery (cosmetic, not health) is another good example of a spiritual problem being addressed from the outside rather than from inside, in my view. It isn’t one of the avenues I chose (and I’m far from being a natural beauty), but I understand the ‘pull’ to do it from my own other experiences.

I don’t have any way to prove it, but really think there is a possiblity that I was born without a conscience - or a very small piece of one. If I felt shame before AA, it was covered over by defiance/justification. Today, I know convictoin readily, like when I catch myself judging someone. It’s an incredible Gift from the Love of God, for all of us.

 

[Jeanne1184]

“To the woman [God] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” -Genesis 3:16

Is there any chance of an interpretation being ‘out there’ of this verse having an underbelly meaning of:

"To the woman God said… Your desire will be for your husband (the one that you chose to commit adultery with, the devil), and he will rule over you (cruelly - until you turn and become made ‘white as snow’ by Repentence - and then return to the husband I chose you for.)

Somehow I think that no matter how much Healing/Insight/Forgiveness I receive, the bottom line will be that when my heart is changed from stone to flesh, the heart-mind must still be ruled by Mind-Intellect - it will never, ever be able to function on its own without being insane. Even ‘cleaned up’, the heart unbound would be insane.

Perhaps a heart without Mind is insanity, just as Mind without heart is tyranical.

Maybe men who have the ‘wife of the devil’ manifested who then finds the manifested ‘husband the devil’ in women - and that is where all the mutual abuse comes from.

But sometimes a man with the Image of God manifested, marries a woman who has the devil manifested - and ‘reverses’ her. Like in “The Taming of the Shrew”. Some say it’s a misogynistic writing, but now I don’t see it that way. “T’was a kindness he done her.” Someone who hasn’t experienced it can’t know the misery of a life lived out of control - a life with the evil within in the driver’s seat. I’ve heard hundreds of those stories in AA.

I spent a lifetime self-willed and screaming, “I gotta be free!” never realizing that I became more bound by the captor within with every time I gave in to the next lie. The closest I ever came to praying was hitting bottom in alcoholism and saying to myself, “Somebody help me…I can’t do this…anymore.” It was enough. Today, I know it wasn’t the words, but the surrender of my heart that made me willing to listen to others who knew the Way Out, instead of relying on a mind that had become overrun by my ‘false husband’ and who, apparently, most wanted to see me dead. There was never true caring, he just wanted to take down Adam because God told him he must bow to Adam. I became the pawn, the means to an end. ((That’s just my ‘sense of it’…it’s subject to change as more understanding comes my way.))

“Until a man has Love, it is well he should have fear. So long as there are wild beasts about, it is better to be afraid than secure.” George MacDonald

To me it says, a man who Knows the Holy Spirit can tame a shrew and have a heart that’s true beside him. But one who does not Know the Holy Spirit is more likely find his own ruin.

Here’s another page on the theme, with a few I hadn’t heard before.

awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/

George MacDonald has the most ‘poetic’ way of expressing it all. I hope to read his books one day to see what else may ‘click’.

“In the windowless tomb of a blind mother, in the dead of the night, under feeble rays of a lamp in an alibaster globe, a girl came into the darkness with a wail.” from “The Day Boy and the Night Girl”

It reminded me of the disappointment flashing across the faces of fathers at births before untrasound. And the shame some men feel when they say, “I have five girls, no sons.” The cutting off the head of women who bear only girls; selective abortion of girls. It all seemed so hopeless - until I found Hope.

“What distressed me most - more even than my own folly - was the perplexing question: How can beauty and ugliness dwell so near? Even with her altered complexion and face of dislike; disenchanted of the belief that clung around her; known for a living, walking sepulcher, faithless, deluding, traitorous; I felt, notwithstanding all this, that she was beautiful. Upon this I pondered with undiminished perplexity…” - George MacDonald, Phantastes

 

[Darryl_B]

Fine. Here, again, is the whole sentence:

“For it is not possible for the Bishop, and one who is concerned with the whole flock, to have a care for the male portion of it, but to pass over the female, which needs more particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins.”

I disagree.

Perhaps, if it were “because of his propensity to sins,” then your interpretation would make sense. But, the pronoun is “its,” and therefore, we have to find a referent that matches that pronoun. You might make the claim that “its” is “the flock”… but that wouldn’t make sense, because on one hand you’re claiming that the (whole) flock has a propensity to sins, and yet the meaning of the sentence is to distinguish between parts of the flock.

You’re saying that the referent for the “which” is the ‘situation’? No… there’s no mention of a situation here; the referent for “which” is “the female (portion of the flock)”. The care of this portion of the flock requires particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins (literally, δια το προς τας αμαρτίας ευολισθον, “its tendency towards sin”).

Note that Chrysostom isn’t talking about a priest who has a propensity to sin; rather, he’s pointing out that a qualified bishop is a man who has spent time in the world, and has learned how to deal with all manners of temptation. Since he’s not a hermit or monk, he can’t spend time only with men, but must care for the women in his church, even though caring for them is more ‘dangerous’, per se, to him.

No… he’s saying exactly the opposite: if it were “cause no room for temptation,” then Chrysostom would be telling priest to run away from contact with women! He’s not – he’s saying that, since a bishop must be in contact with women, he needs to be strong and proven in character!

It is not easy to discuss when it reaches the point where theonly thing I can do is reiterate exactly what I have previously said.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not easy to discuss when it reaches the point where theonly thing I can do is reiterate exactly what I have previously said.

LOL!

I have to admit – as I was writing that response, that was exactly the thought I had in mind, about my post! “But,” I thought to myself, “I can at least hope that my rationale for the interpretation I’ve provided, along with a reference to the original Greek, will be illustrative.”

Clearly, the text speaks plainly to each of us – and we hear it saying distinctly different things!

I would have thought that the grammatical argument – that the phrase “which needs… propensity of sins” only makes sense if you can identify the referent to which the word “which” points – would be compelling. A phantom ‘situation’, which isn’t mentioned at all in the text (and therefore, would mean that the clause is left hanging – which cannot happen in the Greek), cannot possibly be ascribed to Chrysostom: he was far too eloquent a rhetorician to allow such sloppy expression. Clearly, though, the argument from the internal logic of the grammar of the passage doesn’t appeal to you. But hey – if you can’t see it, then I can’t convince you of it!

Perhaps it might be useful to ask you to substantiate your claim: why is it that you believe that your interpretation is reasonable? I’ve provided a rationale for my reading of the text – what’s your rationale for yours?

Peace,
G.