S
StudentMI
Guest
That is a misunderstanding. Equality is a procrustean bed where all must fit a certain mould. Men and women are different. They are therefore unequal. Equity is another thing, as is equality in dignity before God.
Gender roles in marriage. Do some men just have a problem with women?
- Status
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
I think we’re just getting hung up on terminology here. When people commonly say “equal” they mean “better or worse than” not just “different.” It has a qualitative connotation.
I guess just to make it clear we’re talking about the same thing, would you agree with the statement “men are better than women.” (Not better at some specific thing, just “better” generally.)
S
StudentMI
Guest
No I wouldn’t.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
Perfectly reasonable take then, in my opinion.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Don’t forget, the internet is self-selecting for people who have a hard time relating in the real world.
But yes, there is an increasingly vocal group of men on the internet who are very angry that they aren’t having sex.
But yes, there is an increasingly vocal group of men on the internet who are very angry that they aren’t having sex.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
I honestly think (thankfully) this isn’t a “Catholic men” thing.
Rather, it’s a generic secular western trend among certain embittered men (mostly atheists, in my experience), that perhaps to degrees has seeped into the thinking of certain people who happen to be Catholic, just because they also happen to be experiencing the other cultural influences that lead to this. But I’d actually reckon being Catholic slightly immunizes someone against this kind of thinking, rather than makes them more prone to it. I mean, who could meditate on Mary and still have such absurd ideas about what ‘women’ are like?
And I think it’s more niche and fringe than you may be concerned about (it’s just artificially over-represented on the internet).
Basically I think it can largely be traced back to “Pick-up artist” types. You know, those guys who cultivate a community of paid followers then try to develop and ‘teach’ them grand ‘theories’ about male/female interactions… so as to better manipulate females into casual sex (or, more rarely, relationships) with them. Teaching each other little ‘techniques’ like negging, peacocking, that sort of nonsense.
That manipulative approach tends to lend itself to objectifying the people involved, reducing them to base assumed ‘motives’. Like idiotically limiting one’s idea about women to: “All they care about is money, power, or looks,” so that then they can find an easy ‘answer’ to obtaining what they want from a woman (by tricking her into thinking they have money/power, or improving their looks). They have to turn women into a mechanical problem in their heads, if they’re going to try to superimpose a mechanical ‘solution’.
Basically… yeah. I’d say don’t worry about it too much. Pray for the guys involved but know that they’re actually fairly rare, and are mostly immature, frustrated lonely people grasping for any ‘theory’ or technique that might help them find the kind of company they long for and have so far felt excluded from (and unfortunately, gross communities of ‘pick-up artists’ exist online to feed them such theories. Don’t even google ‘red pill’).
Rather, it’s a generic secular western trend among certain embittered men (mostly atheists, in my experience), that perhaps to degrees has seeped into the thinking of certain people who happen to be Catholic, just because they also happen to be experiencing the other cultural influences that lead to this. But I’d actually reckon being Catholic slightly immunizes someone against this kind of thinking, rather than makes them more prone to it. I mean, who could meditate on Mary and still have such absurd ideas about what ‘women’ are like?
And I think it’s more niche and fringe than you may be concerned about (it’s just artificially over-represented on the internet).
Basically I think it can largely be traced back to “Pick-up artist” types. You know, those guys who cultivate a community of paid followers then try to develop and ‘teach’ them grand ‘theories’ about male/female interactions… so as to better manipulate females into casual sex (or, more rarely, relationships) with them. Teaching each other little ‘techniques’ like negging, peacocking, that sort of nonsense.
That manipulative approach tends to lend itself to objectifying the people involved, reducing them to base assumed ‘motives’. Like idiotically limiting one’s idea about women to: “All they care about is money, power, or looks,” so that then they can find an easy ‘answer’ to obtaining what they want from a woman (by tricking her into thinking they have money/power, or improving their looks). They have to turn women into a mechanical problem in their heads, if they’re going to try to superimpose a mechanical ‘solution’.
Basically… yeah. I’d say don’t worry about it too much. Pray for the guys involved but know that they’re actually fairly rare, and are mostly immature, frustrated lonely people grasping for any ‘theory’ or technique that might help them find the kind of company they long for and have so far felt excluded from (and unfortunately, gross communities of ‘pick-up artists’ exist online to feed them such theories. Don’t even google ‘red pill’).
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
I think the “traditional” model many conservatives hold up has a lot more to do with an idealized version of middle class 1950’s life than actual tradition.
For most of history, the idea of one family member going out to work and the other staying home to manage the household was simply not now it worked. In fact the idea that the primary source of support for most families would be outside labor for a paycheck is pretty new. Ask a farm family who worked and who stayed home and they’d just look at you like you’d lost your mind.
And let’s be honest, there are a lot of historical models that really did look down on women. The church has condemned what was the legal attitude in many places for many years - that a married woman was effectively a minor subject to her husband’s control. The historical model in practice was not always a good one.
How much are we actually talking about how masculinity has played out for men across history, and how it should be represented in our society?
For most of history, the idea of one family member going out to work and the other staying home to manage the household was simply not now it worked. In fact the idea that the primary source of support for most families would be outside labor for a paycheck is pretty new. Ask a farm family who worked and who stayed home and they’d just look at you like you’d lost your mind.
And let’s be honest, there are a lot of historical models that really did look down on women. The church has condemned what was the legal attitude in many places for many years - that a married woman was effectively a minor subject to her husband’s control. The historical model in practice was not always a good one.
How much are we actually talking about how masculinity has played out for men across history, and how it should be represented in our society?
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Before the industrial revolution, people didn’t have as much “stuff”, and in some ways, housework was easier. Fewer objects mean fewer things to clean, most people didn’t have a lot of clothes (maybe two outfits, tops, and their undergarments were their sleep wear), and houses were smaller.
OTOH, food production was very time consuming and a family affair.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You are correct. Men who are angry at women because they can’t get a wife/ girlfriend/ sexual partner come in all religious denominations and also include many agnostics and atheists. I think it’s caused by a combination of nature and nurture. It’s not brought on by a particular religious belief system.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I agree that this is mostly true. The only area that seems to be religious in nature is where the men are looking for the perfectly obedient woman that desires nothing more than to be under her husbands rule. There may be an agnostic/atheist representative of that view but I’ve never seen it outside of often strict religious backgrounds. And not any specific religion, other than tending to be rather strict in role models.
Atheists/agnostics tend to know that likeminded women aren’t going to be submissive to men. They tend to demand equality in all areas of marriage…which can create its own issues sometimes.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Creepily, I’ve come across this in an atheistic context. An online (and apparently, frighteningly: offline) community seemingly rooted in a sort of philosophy spawned by some author of some book series, kind of quasi-evolutionary theorizing about some ‘natural’ relationship between men and women… that (apologies for even reporting this) basically proposes that women would be happiest as literal slaves. It’s beyond just fetishizing the idea (although it’s definitely also a fetishized idea): it’s an actual philosophical belief, but not connected to a specific religion.
I don’t even want to google it to remember what it is. Just chiming in that… yeah, philosophical orientation towards subjugation of females (to the point of slavery) does also pop up among some (only some, I agree it’s rare) atheists.
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
On the other hand, they didn’t have a lot of our cleaning tools either! Laundry was backbreaking work, and clothing had to be made by hand. And don’t forget that disposable diapers weren’t a thing. Think about that one for a few minutes.
The stronger predominance of manual labor, combined with the absence of baby bottles and formula or breast pumps, also meant that women with young children had to stay with their babies to provide food (unless they were well off enough to have a wet-nurse). And women typically had many more children, especially since many died in childhood.
You’re right though that food production was a major time-consuming affair. Making food from scratch is quite the task, and many people were in farm families where everything quite literally came in raw form. On the other hand, many more of your needs were being met by at-home labor rather than bought at the store. Like you probably bought cloth and made your own clothes rather than buying clothing.
I think this is accurate. There’s a certain mostly online trend of men blaming women for not being the perfect little submissive and accommodating angels these guys want. Many of these men believe that all or almost all women are sleeping around or having sex only with a small subset of attractive men (“chads” or “alpha males”) and are bitter because of this. Often they also believe that women seek to manipulate men via marriage, sex, and children. It’s not a healthy view, but it is a minority and it is I think smaller among Catholics than among non-believers.
P
Pattylt
Guest
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Oh, they’re out there. Again, I don’t want to google to remember exactly what the community is, or point others towards it… but there are both men and women who talk about choosing to basically enter written contracts (I presume can’t be legally binding in most countries, but they write these contracts with the intent of binding themselves) of slavish relationship. And they insist it’s not just a fetish thing.I’m trying to picture any atheist women buying into that!
Anyway that’s about all the time I want to spend today on remembering that that community exists. Except to say a prayer for them.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
I’m not an anthropologist, but from visiting living history museums and reading a lot, I get the feeling that colonial American life was in no way “easy”, but that Victorian life got way complicated because of the Industrial Revolution.
Like, middle class bourgeois life came with an entire set of expectations—you had to have a certain number of outfits, of undergarments, of table settings, of courses at each meal, etc, that in turn necessitated one or more women (wife and housekeeper) at home to manage everything. So you had women making and caring for a lot more clothes and household accessories, but without the labor saving devices yet.
So you had the pedal sewing machine and could make more clothes than by hand, but were still using a washboard to do laundry. Food was made by scratch, but there weren’t any washing machines to clean all the dishes the ladies’ magazines claimed were essential to a well-appointed table.
Labor saving devices came along a bit later and started to ease the burden of some of the chores.
Like, middle class bourgeois life came with an entire set of expectations—you had to have a certain number of outfits, of undergarments, of table settings, of courses at each meal, etc, that in turn necessitated one or more women (wife and housekeeper) at home to manage everything. So you had women making and caring for a lot more clothes and household accessories, but without the labor saving devices yet.
So you had the pedal sewing machine and could make more clothes than by hand, but were still using a washboard to do laundry. Food was made by scratch, but there weren’t any washing machines to clean all the dishes the ladies’ magazines claimed were essential to a well-appointed table.
Labor saving devices came along a bit later and started to ease the burden of some of the chores.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thus also why anyone that could afford a servant, got one! Victorian lifestyles demanded one have money…otherwise you were a peasant! No one without wealth could handle all that was required to live that way!
England even had rules on who was allowed to wear what. Couldn’t have the peasants trying to pass as upper class! I think the Victorians created their own hells in maintaining its class system! Most of the time, the lesser classes had neither the time, money or inclination to compete.
England even had rules on who was allowed to wear what. Couldn’t have the peasants trying to pass as upper class! I think the Victorians created their own hells in maintaining its class system! Most of the time, the lesser classes had neither the time, money or inclination to compete.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Atheist/ agnostic men will be looking for women who are obedient based on their culture. In my experience, they often look for Asian mail-order brides, or they make the mistake of thinking Asian women are all submissive.
Or they might also just look for women they can dominate in a secular way; some women like that.
Or they might also just look for women they can dominate in a secular way; some women like that.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
You see a lot of this referenced in Dickens
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
In my wanderings through the internets I came across one of those Red Pill thread where the men were advising each other to find a conservative, religious woman to marry because she’d be less likely to cheat or have an extensive sexual history.
And a lot of the guys were on the Skeptical end of the religious spectrum
D
DarkLight
Guest
Frequently from what I’ve seen they also look for significantly younger women. Some of the secular reddit communities even bemoan that they can’t marry teenagers because of “feminist lies” or something. There’s a definite sense that the ideal is targeting young women who don’t have the life experience to realize this isn’t normal or healthy behavior, and then isolating them in ways that encourage dependence.
It gets very creepy sometimes.
- Status