Gender roles in marriage. Do some men just have a problem with women?

[Sarcelle]

Of course if you are married you have to be open to life.

If you are single there is no need to be open to life.

If you disagree, how is that supposed to look like?

 

[DarkLight]

Near as I can tell here’s how the thread has gone so far:

• Claim that there are places in the world where women are treated as less important or second-class, as exemplified by sex-selective abortion and infanticide.
• Counter-claim that that shouldn’t be an issue because the only thing women can do that men can’t, according to feminism, is have kids
• Response to that that women aren’t commanded by the church to marry and have children.
• Counter-response that humans are commanded in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply.
• A bunch more back and forth on the moral obligations to have kids or not.

At this point I think everyone’s just sort of talking past each other and we’re hitting the spot where the points being made are only loosely related to where the discussion was going.

 

[Sarcelle]

It was me who posted about the gender imbalance.

For the record, I believe abortion is evil and it is an evil that caused this imbalance.

Maybe for you it is not a problem but for me it is not okay.

When I posted about women not being forced into motherhood, I meant to say that women have a choice to not get married and not be a mother. Exercising this choice is not sin according to Church teaching.

 

[MNathaniel]

To return the original point, the claim was made that China and India are facing a problem in the form of a gender imbalance. I want to know why this is a problem. The only thing women can do that men cannot is bear the next generation. However expecting any individual woman to have that duty runs contrary to feminism. So why is the gender imbalance a problem?

Two sample reasons for you:

1. The mass-murders of pre-born children, and forced contraception against women, that produced this gender imbalance = an inherent evil = a problem.
2. Gender imbalance in society is generally understood to lead to social unrest. Particularly when there are more males than females, since statistically and historically the males are more likely to act out in violent or criminal ways. I have no desire to go down this rabbit hole, but there are documented social consequences when vast hordes of young males are unable to find wives because either (a) there literally aren’t enough women in their society because they were killed in the womb, or (b) other males in the society have married multiple women each in polygamy, leaving again: a small army of often restless, angry males who feel robbed of their chance at a romantic relationship or family, and are looking for somewhere to direct that aggression.

 

[MNathaniel]

. . . .

I’m a Catholic and a woman. Of course I support outlawing abortion, and of course I believe that women like myself are moral agents who are not entitled to murder children.

Your profile says you’re Catholic but your comments don’t come across that way. What is your position and intention here?

 

[WingedHussar]

I am really not sure where you’re getting this from. It sounds a lot like you’re reading your stereotype of what a generic feminist says into what I said.

So there is no need for an alternative “masculinity”?

 

[DarkLight]

So there is no need for an alternative “masculinity”?

What I was saying is that the Church is not doing a great job of actually providing models of Catholic masculinity to men as an alternative to the sex-soaked, you’re-in-charge model that secular culture has. I didn’t say that those models don’t exist, just that they’re not really being offered to our young men. And I don’t think that merely grabbing a generic model out of an idealized history is a good idea. People have been sinners since Adam and Eve, and I believe neither that our generation is especially depraved nor that it is especially virtuous.

It has always been the Church’s job to provide an alternative to society’s model. Whether it was our ancestors in faith opposing the Roman model where the husband and father was a sovereign dictator to his family, to the modern one where free sex is glorified. That is a constant of the Church Militant in a fallen world.

 

[MNathaniel]

Theoretically it should be the perfect ground for feminism to prove itself.

Who on earth do you think you’re arguing against? No one here is trying to “prove feminism”.

Statements like this are what make you seem like you’re trolling.

 

[WingedHussar]

Merely an observation followed by a question on my part. Why so serious?

 

[MNathaniel]

Why so serious?

Ah, the battle cry of that famous non-troll.



I’m out.

 

[WingedHussar]

What I was saying is that the Church is not doing a great job of actually providing models of Catholic masculinity to men as an alternative to the sex-soaked, you’re-in-charge model that secular culture has.

The Catholic Church has failed spectacularly in this regard, on that we agree. Not sure the bolded text is really the case though. It seems like the modern model of masculinity is indistinguishable from women except for the idea that men are supposed to be good allies, shut up, and #letherlead or some similarly vapid hashtag slogan.

I didn’t say that those models don’t exist, just that they’re not really being offered to our young men. And I don’t think that merely grabbing a generic model out of an idealized history is a good idea.

Wrong, myths have always been used as a sort of cultural shorthand to express the deeper underlying truths and values.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

It would seem from the OP’s past posts that she has lived a rather privileged life.

I must apologise if that is the impression that I have given. I grew up about as poor as it’s possible to be in western Europe. My father worked in a factory and my mother was a cleaner—that is when they had work. My school lunches and school uniform were paid for by the local authority. My school covered the cost of school trips. We lived in a rented flat above a shop. We had three bedrooms, of which two were habitable. Our only heating was from paraffin (kerosene). Outside our back door (we didn’t have a front door) we didn’t have a lawn or patio, but rusting sheets of iron laid directly on the soil. We had periodic infestations of vermin, leaking roofs, and a toilet that was flushed with buckets of water. Our landlord refused to carry out repairs, constantly threatened to evict us, and resorted to tactics such as posting dead animals through the letterbox, claiming to the authorities that my parents were running a brothel, and threats of violence and arson. The borough in which I grew up has the highest rate of violent crime in the whole of the UK. There were several occasions on which I had a weapon pulled on me on my way home from school.

I was therefore strongly motivated to pursue a career in which I would be able to make money and enjoy security. My biggest concern was always to own my own home, not as an investment, but so that I would never again have to fear being homeless or live in fear of a landlord. Even now, I calculate that if we were to lose our home, we would still have sufficient assets to buy a small place in the north of England. I also enjoy not having to worry about whether I can afford things. I don’t mean that I live a luxurious lifestyle, but I can, for example, buy myself new clothes.

To return to my original point, I guess it just never occurred to me that I could, or should, rely on somebody else to provide any of this stuff for me. If I’d wanted to marry somebody who made a lot of money, I imagine I probably could have done so. But I married the person I wanted to be married to. I feel that contributing financially is just one way of contributing to a relationship.

I think that the one thing I could not stand for would be being married to somebody who simply refused to work at all. In fact, one of the things that got me interested in Catholicism was reading Laborem exercens.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

OK, then sorry if I misunderstood your background. Thank you for explaininng.

 

[AdamP88]

If you believe in spiritual and legal equality I guess I’m unclear in what sense you believe women are inferior.

Not equal is not the same as inferior. Are an apple and an orange equal?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Not equal is not the same as inferior. Are an apple and an orange equal?

At least in the context of human beings, “equality” has a qualitative aspect. It doesn’t mean “identical” or “the same.”

Most people would not say that a brown haired person and a blonde haired person are “unequal” if what they meant was “they are not identical.”

 

[Sarcelle]

Men and women are complementary halves of humanity.

A more apt comparison would be comparing red and green. Both are colors but they are complementary colors.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I also think it’s especially easy for catholic men to see the objectified, in your face, nearly pornographic displays our modern society pushes, and thing that’s representative of your average modern woman’s attitudes.

Yes, now that’s an interesting thought. It’s a phenomenon we’re familiar with, in a less subtle way, when we see how a lot of people in Muslim societies view western women. It’s taken me a long time to understand that one reason why men in Muslim societies often have a very negative attitude towards western women is because they have been given a very distorted idea of what western societies are like. I listened to a fascinating podcast about Bowe Bergdahl. One of the interesting things he said was that the Taliban foot soldiers seemed to genuinely believe a lot of ridiculous things about the West. For example, they thought that all western women were prostitutes and that officers in western armed forces were supplied with a harem of local women.

Now, of course, nobody is suggesting that traditionalist Catholics have that extreme a view of what the rest of society is like, but if one lives in a close-knit community that is somewhat separated from mainstream society, and if that is how one gets most of ones information, then one is obviously going to have somewhat distorted ideas about mainstream culture. If that person is single and perhaps involved with online communities like Incel/MGTOW/MRA etc, then it is possible that they will develop some strange ideas.

I honestly think (thankfully) this isn’t a “Catholic men” thing.

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.

I would agree with both these comments, and I probably didn’t express myself very clearly first time. I don’t for a moment imagine that this is purely a Catholic thing or that it is anything that is actually promoted by any official Church position. I suppose what I was more wondering is whether, for some people, a certain interpretation of Catholicism, or a certain Catholic culture, can be hijacked as a rationalisation for their unreasonable views or feelings, perhaps not even consciously.

 

[MNathaniel]

wondering is whether, for some people, a certain interpretation of Catholicism, or a certain Catholic culture, can be hijacked as a rationalisation for their unreasonable views or feelings, perhaps not even consciously.

Oh 100%.

I think virtually any religion, philosophy, culture, scientific discovery, etc, can be hijacked to rationalize unhealthy views or behaviours one is already inclined to. That’s a huge current running through world history.

Racists try to twist religion or science to justify their racism. Sexists likewise. Whatever someone wants to do already (wage war, imprison slaves, kill children or the sick and disabled, torture prisoners, etc)… chances are they can find snippets from religion or science, philosophy or cultural precedent, to twist out of context and cite as part of their ‘rationalization’.

It doesn’t mean any of those things are their real reason. The reason is usually super basic, like:

“I feel wrathful and want an object to vent my anger against.”

“I feel lazy and want someone else to do the things I don’t want to do.”

“I feel greedy and want someone else to provide the things I want at no cost to myself.”

And then the rationalization is kind of tacked on afterwards as sort of a way of protecting themselves from seeing themselves as they are. Pseudo-justifying to themselves that they’re not really just wrathful/lazy/greedy, etc – they’re guided by noble and lofty principles that just happen to point in a convenient direction! Or attempting to pseudo-justify the same in the eyes of others so as to try to get less pushback from others.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Are an apple and an orange equal?

No, oranges are better.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

If a person is mentally healthy and has mostly good relationships, they don’t need to worry about “acting masculine” or “acting feminine” because the key to good relationships is to be able to cooperate, be courteous and set good boundaries .