F
fix
Guest
St. Paul talked about being effeminate.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
It doesn’t bother me in the least. It was give in the context of a man who was wanting to embrace his feminism as who he was. Such a person who associates so much with his mannerism might well be helped by changing behavior. It is very sound.
Yes, there is a double standard. Women I have know seem more capable of “tomboyishness” without confusion with their femininity. Guys that act all feminine seem to feel more, well gay, for it, at least that has been my observation. I have heard the phrase “put a little more bass in that voice” but never “put a little more soprano in that voice.”
I would say again that I believe his answer to be specific to that person who associates his gender with his behavior and it concerns him. Those guys out there that like to do girly things without feeling any compromise to their gender should not be concerned about this answer. FYI, if full disclosure, I have my own feminine (traditionally) components that I am perfectly fine with. They are things I do, not who I am. that is the difference.
Yes, there is a double standard. Women I have know seem more capable of “tomboyishness” without confusion with their femininity. Guys that act all feminine seem to feel more, well gay, for it, at least that has been my observation. I have heard the phrase “put a little more bass in that voice” but never “put a little more soprano in that voice.”
I would say again that I believe his answer to be specific to that person who associates his gender with his behavior and it concerns him. Those guys out there that like to do girly things without feeling any compromise to their gender should not be concerned about this answer. FYI, if full disclosure, I have my own feminine (traditionally) components that I am perfectly fine with. They are things I do, not who I am. that is the difference.
J
Jala
Guest
Exactly what the heck is “effeminate?” Cooking? Doing housework? Changing the baby’s diapers? Being short of stature? Having a high-pitched voice? Wearing pink? Being a nurse instead of a doctor? 
The whole idea of “normal” gender roles, other than the obvious physical reproduction, is BS. Do what you’re called to do, and ignore haters. They aren’t worth your thoughts.
Jala
The whole idea of “normal” gender roles, other than the obvious physical reproduction, is BS. Do what you’re called to do, and ignore haters. They aren’t worth your thoughts.
Jala
S
Shin
Guest
Just so folks are aware, effeminacy is the name of a vice. So is delicacy.
They’re worth reading up more on. It’s not all relative. It is at its heart a matter of virtue and vice, and whether people fulfill their God given duties, offices, etc. that come with their gender.
When a man doesn’t want to be a man, or a woman a woman, there’s a fundamental problem there and a lack of appreciation of what it means to be this. A lot of vices of these times are aimed at turning people’s appreciations upside down – and folks do normally have to unlearn some very diabolical cultural conditioning.
But that’s part of conversion – changing how we feel and think. As Christians – to be other than the world’s standards.
They’re worth reading up more on. It’s not all relative. It is at its heart a matter of virtue and vice, and whether people fulfill their God given duties, offices, etc. that come with their gender.
When a man doesn’t want to be a man, or a woman a woman, there’s a fundamental problem there and a lack of appreciation of what it means to be this. A lot of vices of these times are aimed at turning people’s appreciations upside down – and folks do normally have to unlearn some very diabolical cultural conditioning.
But that’s part of conversion – changing how we feel and think. As Christians – to be other than the world’s standards.
F
fix
Guest
Good post.
B
Boccherini
Guest
I thought Father Serpa’s answer was a little peculiar. First of all, there was no mention of what the effeminate behaviors were. Were they even what most people would call effeminate? And which people?
One of the reasons Cardinal Newman was disliked by his contemporaries was because they thought he was effeminate. –
“In all that school,” wrote Kingsley in 1851, “there is an element of foppery — even in dress and manner; a fastidious, maundering, die-away effeminacy, which is mistaken for purity and refinement.”
One of the reasons Cardinal Newman was disliked by his contemporaries was because they thought he was effeminate. –
“In all that school,” wrote Kingsley in 1851, “there is an element of foppery — even in dress and manner; a fastidious, maundering, die-away effeminacy, which is mistaken for purity and refinement.”
S
Sarcelle
Guest
We can go round and round discussing what is effeminate and what is not. If effeminacy is indeed a sin, is there a formal church document which defines this, so as to guide the faithful?
J
jimmy
Guest
Learned doesn’t necessarily preclude a natural explanation as well. It is possible that there is a genetic predisposition for certain mannerisms and behaviors, and then throughout life those behaviors are determined through our environment and our acceptance of it.
I would suggest that he changes his mannerisms, if only because he might be putting off an image of himself that isn’t in accordance with who he is. People interpret other peoples characters based on their mannerisms and behavior. Whether that is good or bad, it is reality.
Further, there is some ambiguity in the question about what is included in his effeminate characteristics that he is questioning. Is it just small mannerisms, or is it his general behavior? Is he passive (men tend to be more assertive, and are actually expected to be assertive)? If this is the case he might want to become more assertive.
I would suggest that he changes his mannerisms, if only because he might be putting off an image of himself that isn’t in accordance with who he is. People interpret other peoples characters based on their mannerisms and behavior. Whether that is good or bad, it is reality.
Further, there is some ambiguity in the question about what is included in his effeminate characteristics that he is questioning. Is it just small mannerisms, or is it his general behavior? Is he passive (men tend to be more assertive, and are actually expected to be assertive)? If this is the case he might want to become more assertive.
P
pnewton
Guest
No one is hating anyone. Fr. Serpa’s post contained no hate.
J
jimmy
Guest
Are you saying there are no differences in psychology between men and women? Are you saying that there are no genetic predispositions for behavior? Because those are necessary presuppositions for your argument. You are forced to assume that there are no norms and no predispositions of behavior.Exactly what the heck is “effeminate?” Cooking? Doing housework? Changing the baby’s diapers? Being short of stature? Having a high-pitched voice? Wearing pink? Being a nurse instead of a doctor?
The whole idea of “normal” gender roles, other than the obvious physical reproduction, is BS. Do what you’re called to do, and ignore haters. They aren’t worth your thoughts.
Jala
But the problem with that is that no matter how hard feminists push for the destruction of gender roles, they still maintain the gender roles in many ways. Men are almost always the agressors in a relationship between a man and a woman. I am forced to go up to a girl and talk to her if I want to, because she isn’t going to do it.
L
LightBound
Guest
Jimmy, you might have misunderstood what she was saying. She was asking what exactly people thought was “effeminate” and if it was the old stereotypical garbage about men shouldn’t cook, clean, or take care of the children and how they should all be tall and have deep voices and women shouldn’t do things like become a doctor, get a college education, or make decisions. Those things she mentioned were not psychological differences based on gender.
Believing women can get an education, become a doctor, and engineer, or an attorney does not make one a feminist…nor does thinking men are capable of cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children.
J
jimmy
Guest
Women already are better educated than men. More women graduate from college than men. Men already cook (watch the cooking network) and clean.
Women can do what they want, and no one will argue. They can be doctors, engineers, scientists, or whatever their hearts so desire. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are certain fields that are still dominated by men, even after the feminist revolution. Women may be better educated, but men are still the ones on the frontier of technology and invention. Men still are responsible for the vast majority of technological leaps. Women tend to dominate the education field. This supports the fact that there are norms (including psychological norms that deal with the difference in the ways men and women think) that are different between men and women.
Secondly, women still expect men to be more assertive, whether it is a sexual or economic context. A driven woman generally wants a man who is just as driven or more so than herself. There may be exceptions, but that is generally the norm. And I would say that most men would probably prefer to be the more assertive and driven one in the relationship. No woman wants a passive man who will stay home and clean, and no man wants to be passive while his wife is assertive and driven.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
I don’t understand what you’re basing this on.There are plenty of marriages in which the husband cares for the home while the wife works. Would it really be so surprising that at least some of those couples are happy with this arrangements?
If so, then on what basis are you declaring it “wrong”? On the basis that most people do not choose such a lifestyle? That is fallacious (ad populum).
X
x1980x
Guest
This is a really good point. If a future culture were to arise in 2050 where religious faith was considered girly and that males were expected to be atheists and this was enforced by social censure, would it then be a sin for a man to believe because by believing, he is considered effeminate?
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Worth reading up more on? I beg to differ. I just wasted an hour reading so-called Catholic material on this subject when they could have summarized their message in ten seconds or less - “stop acting like a [British word for cigarette.]”
Should I study it a little longer? Perhaps. But I’ve got to be honest: it sure looks crazy. And borderline evil. So unless you can briefly explain why it’s not crazy or evil, I’ll direct my attention elsewhere. Remember there’s only so much time in a day!
S
Shin
Guest
If people do not understand these are vices, they need to know what each vice means, and what its opposing virtue is.
For example, from the Catechism of the Summa:
OF PATIENCE OF LONGANIMITY AND OF CONSTANCY
What is the essence of the virtue of patience?
The essence of patience consists in supporting, for the sake of the future life, all the troubles that come to us unceasingly in the present life, whether they be caused by life s own whims or by the actions of others in their dealings with us (CXXXVI. 1-3).
Is patience the same as longanimity and constancy?
No; for although all three help us to bear the miseries of this life, patience helps us to bear especially the troubles which come about daily in our dealings with others; whereas longanimity bears us up against those troubles which arise from the delay of the realization of something for which we have to wait; and constancy buoys us up against the troubles which we encounter in the struggle to do good (CXXXVI. 5).
OF PERSEVERANCE; AND OF THE SINS OPPOSED THERETO,VIZ., OF EFFEMINACY AND OF OBSTINACY
What relation has perseverance to the virtues afore mentioned?
Perseverance does not refer to the bearing up under troubles; it refers rather to the fatigue occasioned by the sustained effort of practising a virtuous life (CXXXVII. 1-3).
Are there any sins opposed to this virtue?
Yes, they are the lack of resistance or effeminacy, which makes one give way to the least difficulty or to the least fatigue; and obstinacy, which makes one persist in not giving way when it is reasonable to do so (CXXXVIII. 1,2).
Or from Holy Scripture:
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
That’s a beginning. One naturally should prefer to study the virtues most, because then one has an admirable goal, though one can get an idea of what they are from what is wrong with the vices.
Fortitude, perseverance, constancy, longanimity, when you know precisely what they are, then you know when you are properly practicing them. And then you know that you are doing good, if both exteriorly, and interiorly you are practicing them properly, for the sake of God, and with God.
And so you can have something to truly appreciate in your life for the good memories thereof here and in the next.
For example, from the Catechism of the Summa:
OF PATIENCE OF LONGANIMITY AND OF CONSTANCY
What is the essence of the virtue of patience?
The essence of patience consists in supporting, for the sake of the future life, all the troubles that come to us unceasingly in the present life, whether they be caused by life s own whims or by the actions of others in their dealings with us (CXXXVI. 1-3).
Is patience the same as longanimity and constancy?
No; for although all three help us to bear the miseries of this life, patience helps us to bear especially the troubles which come about daily in our dealings with others; whereas longanimity bears us up against those troubles which arise from the delay of the realization of something for which we have to wait; and constancy buoys us up against the troubles which we encounter in the struggle to do good (CXXXVI. 5).
OF PERSEVERANCE; AND OF THE SINS OPPOSED THERETO,VIZ., OF EFFEMINACY AND OF OBSTINACY
What relation has perseverance to the virtues afore mentioned?
Perseverance does not refer to the bearing up under troubles; it refers rather to the fatigue occasioned by the sustained effort of practising a virtuous life (CXXXVII. 1-3).
Are there any sins opposed to this virtue?
Yes, they are the lack of resistance or effeminacy, which makes one give way to the least difficulty or to the least fatigue; and obstinacy, which makes one persist in not giving way when it is reasonable to do so (CXXXVIII. 1,2).
Or from Holy Scripture:
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
That’s a beginning. One naturally should prefer to study the virtues most, because then one has an admirable goal, though one can get an idea of what they are from what is wrong with the vices.
Fortitude, perseverance, constancy, longanimity, when you know precisely what they are, then you know when you are properly practicing them. And then you know that you are doing good, if both exteriorly, and interiorly you are practicing them properly, for the sake of God, and with God.
And so you can have something to truly appreciate in your life for the good memories thereof here and in the next.
J
jimmy
Guest
I never said it was wrong. What I said is that there are genetic differences Between men and women that make them act differently. I am not sure what you think I said was wrong. I assume you are referring to the fact that women prefer men that are assertive, and men prefer to be assertive. There is no dispute in that. Every psychologist will say the same. Every biologist, historian, anthropologist, and philosopher will also affirm it in as much as they can through their field. You dont need a professional to confirm it either. Just pay attenrion to how you relate to the opposite sex. Men have always been more assertive, and they always will be. It is due to their physical make up that they are more assertive, so it isn’t going to change any time soon.
Men are viewed as not being men (by both men and women) if they aren’t assertive and willing to go out and risk it all. They will tell him “grow a pair” or “be a man”. If a man stays at home while his wife works, they will say to him “be a man”. Or they will talk behind his back about how she could have done better. Maybe he’s comfortable in that situation (comfort isn’t necessarily good), but that is the way everyone is looking at the situation. He has basically been neutered, and chances are he feels it too.
L
LightBound
Guest
If this is your personal experience, you need to change the people you associate with. If this is your generalization of what you think always happens, you need to get out more. The behavior you’ve described in your post sounds more like junior high school bullies or idiots from a machismo culture than it does mature, educated, Catholic men.
J
jimmy
Guest
It’s not junior high, and its not catholic men. It is the way society is. You have never heard someone say “be a man” or something similar? It’s not machismo, it’s self respect. Any man with a little self respect expects to support himself. It’s not a comfort to be unproductive or to be dependant.
I dont know whether you are a man or woman. I am assuming you are a woman and that you think simply that a man should be able to switch to being passive. Women have charged their roles and become more assertive, so it is reasonable that men could just as easily change their roles and become passive. Is any of that right? The problem is that passivity makes men feel impotent because it actually makes them impotent.
Women can do what they want, but chances are they should find someone who is just as motivated as themselves because if she doesn’t they will both be unhappy.
- Status