If Matriarchy & Feminism Are Sinful, Why Isn't There More Of It?

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course. Since materialists like to use animals to derive human morality I’ll pick the wolf pack. Packs are headed by the alpha male, not a female. In fact this order is found across the animal kingdom.

I am glad you admit that your ideology is materialistic.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Translation: “No I do not know anything about the Christian faith, however, I find it logical to have a problem with something I know nothing about…I’m a realist”

And yet you have given no reasonable arguments for why its ridiculous.

This post made me smile.

Frankly if I knew nothing about Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular I couldn’t argue as well as I do. And I would certainly not be able to upset the conservative posters here as much as I have if I couldn’t question or criticize specific aspects of their faith. But if you want to think of me as ignorant that’s fine:shrug:

However, it will not make your own position or words any more convincing. The opposite is more likely.

 

[meltzerboy]

How does it prove anything?

Women have often been treated like property.
Given away, bought, sold, and traded at the whims of others, even the Bible supports this view of history. Isn’t this the very opposite of having any sort of meaningful power, independence, or authority?

Moreover what domestic power?
Traditionally Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all believed and taught that the husband and father reigns in his household, and his wife (or wives) and children are all under his authority.

To your last statement, yes and no. In many (non-Orthodox) Jewish families, the wife is in charge, not the husband. And I think this may also be so in some Italian and Irish families.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAthiests position that superiority in role automatically denotes the belief in the superiority of the individual (meaning their value is greater because of their role) is unreasonable and not logical. In fact it’s just as unreasonable as saying because men cannot bear children then they are less superior in value compared to women. Now while I’m sure AA can understand and see that the value of the sexes is not affected even though the roles in which they play in nature are different, then one can only ask why he/she stumbles at the idea that this truth is present in the way in which The Church and The Family are setup within Christianity? The only argument that the OP has given against the role of males and females in the family is that one side could abuse their position of authority, but this is a reality regardless of which sex holds the position so how is the idea that the father is the head of the household unfair to the mother if the father does not abuse his position of authority? Short answer is: NOTHING! There is no valid argument against patriarchy…none!

There is no valid argument against patriarchy?

Really

Your right of course, there would be nothing wrong with patriarchy if men didn’t abuse their authority. Or in other words, there would be nothing wrong with the system of patriarchy if men were morally perfect.

However…
Men are not morally perfect.

In fact, Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular all tell us that people are quite greedy, lustful, slothful, lazy, selfish, etc. (e.g. sinful). Therefore if women are at the beck and call of men (and the reverse isn’t true) then men are very very likely to take advantage of this.

Women need a degree of power, independence, and authority in their own right, otherwise they will be horribly abused and exploited. There are still countries (primarily in the Middle East and Africa) where patriarchy is absolute and women have no political power or rights to speak of. These are generally horrible places for women to live.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Don’t you just love it when you are on the forums and you take the time to write out a nice size post trying to answer a question that was ask only to get a one line answer that only address and small part of your post?

sigh

AA, I do not understand the point you are trying to make with that statement. Can you please explain yourself more fully. Why does the fact that most people stop reading at that point matter?

Because the rest of the passage has been much less influential, and therefore important (from anything but a theological perspective). Many laws have been written about how wives must obey their husbands, often citing that Biblical passage as justification (at least here in the West). But no nation has ever legally obligated a man to love his wife.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Unfortunately there is a significant number of Catholics who think that women should have no power and few (if any) legal rights. Here’s a link to such a group explaining their views: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

Speaking of “planet”, this quote, which I stole from another thread* here on CAF, describes my opinion of the “catholic planet” site:

" Remember this is the interwebs, the only medium in the history of humanity where the village idiot and the poor deranged sod can spout their views to the planet, literally! "

*The entire post I took that from gave the BEST advice for dealing with people like the catholic planet folks!

And thanks be to God that the few that actually follow that site are not near as many as one would think…although quite a few of them have found an audience here on CAF…but I stay far away from the section those folks frequent!

 

[Heliotropium]

There is no valid argument against patriarchy?

Really

Your right of course, there would be nothing wrong with patriarchy if men didn’t abuse their authority. Or in other words, there would be nothing wrong with the system of patriarchy if men were morally perfect.

I know I’m right that’s beside the point.

However…
Men are not morally perfect.

In fact, Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular all tell us that people are quite greedy, lustful, slothful, lazy, selfish, etc. (e.g. sinful). Therefore if women are at the beck and call of men (and the reverse isn’t true) then men are very very likely to take advantage of this.

By this same reasoning I could say governments should not be established since the politicians can and do abuse their power. However I wouldn’t say that because governments are supposed to be established for the wellbeing of the nation and its people. Patriarchy when used correctly is a good thing because it too is a form of government that is set in place for the wellbeing of the family; however, when used incorrectly it can also become something bad.

Yet patriarchy in Christianity does not allow the man the right to abuse the woman and it doesn’t call for the woman to submit to teachings, practices or rules which contradict the Christian faith she professes. Furthermore the man is not allowed to dismiss his wife’s opinion as useless or insignificant and both are supposed to come to an agreement regarding the things which can and do affect the wellbeing of the family!

Women need a degree of power, independence, and authority in their own right, otherwise they will be horribly abused and exploited. There are still countries (primarily in the Middle East and Africa) where patriarchy is absolute and women have no political power or rights to speak of. These are generally horrible places for women to live.

This is where you confuse me. You ask a boat load of questions in a Catholic forum one of which is in regards to your view against the practice of patriarchy even in the Christian Faith and then you use examples of where such a practice is being incorrectly used according to the Christian faith as your argument against patriarchy? And if this isn’t confusing enough you then ask why Christians defend this practice of patriarchy when there are those in the world who are using it incorrectly!?

Maybe you could answer these questions:

How is patriarchy practiced and supposed to be practiced in the Christian faith?

How does the practice of patriarchy in secular society or in other non -Christian religions pertain to the Christian practice of patriarchy?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I know I’m right that’s beside the point.

Obviously you’re not familiar with the concept of irony.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

By this same reasoning I could say governments should not be established since the politicians can and do abuse their power. However I wouldn’t say that because governments are supposed to be established for the wellbeing of the nation and its people. Patriarchy when used correctly is a good thing because it too is a form of government that is set in place for the wellbeing of the family; however, when used incorrectly it can also become something bad.

Yet patriarchy in Christianity does not allow the man the right to abuse the woman and it doesn’t call for the woman to submit to teachings, practices or rules which contradict the Christian faith she professes. Furthermore the man **is not allowed **to dismiss his wife’s opinion as useless or insignificant and both are supposed to come to an agreement regarding the things which can and do affect the wellbeing of the family!

The man is not allowed?
The man* must *respect his wife’s opinions and needs?

Says who?
If the man has all the power, his opinion is the only one that matters, and how well his women and children are treated depends entirely on the man’s decency.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is where you confuse me. You ask a boat load of questions in a Catholic forum one of which is in regards to your view against the practice of patriarchy even in the Christian Faith and then you use examples of where such a practice is being incorrectly used according to the Christian faith as your argument against patriarchy? And if this isn’t confusing enough you then ask why Christians defend this practice of patriarchy when there are those in the world who are using it incorrectly!?

Maybe you could answer these questions:

How is patriarchy practiced and supposed to be practiced in the Christian faith?

How does the practice of patriarchy in secular society or in other non -Christian religions pertain to the Christian practice of patriarchy?

Don’t be so ethocentric.
Patriarchy is far from just a Christian or even Western issue.

 

[StarFireKK]

Apparently Satan and those under his influence can create societies where things like human sacrifice, male homosexuality, and even the unnecessary and cruel mutilation of baby girls sexual organs are celebrated, but they can’t challenge the Good Ol’ Boy system(s)

So I ask you Catholic defenders of patriarchy (in the home and in society) do you have any rational explanation for this, or this one of those ‘He works in mysterious ways’ type of things (which I don’t consider a real argument at all)?

Your original question asks why Satan isn’t toppling the Boys Club and making Girls Club.

My answer was “Because he doesn’t need to.” The concept of patriarchy as taught in the Catholic faith sometimes becomes corrupted. Instead of the husband and wife acting as a unit they are abusive and cruel to each other. In that case everyone loses and the devil wins.

Now you are telling me that taking the time to show you why and how the devil attacks the teachings of the Church in a way you didn’t expect isn’t “important” to the very topic you brought up. You asked why the devil didn’t create all powerful female societies. You didn’t ask what part of the Bible I thought was the most influential when it came to writing laws.

 

[Heliotropium]

Obviously you’re not familiar with the concept of irony.

This responce would leave me to believe that you do not understand the concept of irony.

The man is not allowed?
The man* must *respect his wife’s opinions and needs?

Says who?

Says God according to us Christians.

If the man has all the power, his opinion is the only one that matters, and how well his women and children are treated depends entirely on the man’s decency.

First off what makes you think just because someone has the ability to do something means they have the right to do it? Secondly a person’s authority does not give them the right to ignore the council of the very people they govern or to ignore their wellbeing. To do this would be to ABUSE ones office of authority and the last time I checked Christians do not support the abuse of authority. In fact to do this would be considered gravely sinful.

To even pursue offices of authority for one’s own glory is a grievous sin.

Don’t be so ethocentric.
Patriarchy is far from just a Christian or even Western issue.

How is this relevant to anything I have said? Why do you ignore all of my questions and respond back with one liners that completelty miss the mark? I feel like I’m stuck in one of those BING commercials where the person says something and the people around them respond back with something other than what the person was originally talking about. youtube.com/watch?v=i1AwFY6MuwE :banghead:

 

[StarFireKK]

How is this relevant to anything I have said? Why do you ignore all of my questions and respond back with one liners that completelty miss the mark? I feel like I’m stuck in one of those BING commercials where the person says something and the people around them respond back with something other than what the person was originally talking about. youtube.com/watch?v=i1AwFY6MuwE :banghead:

:tiphat:

That is EXACTLY how I feel too! Thanks for the perfect image!

Good luck during the next round!

 

[Allegra]

The man is not allowed?
The man* must *respect his wife’s opinions and needs?

Says who?
If the man has all the power, his opinion is the only one that matters, and how well his women and children are treated depends entirely on the man’s decency.

Are we talking about secular society or within the confines of a sacramental marraicge. If we’re talking about the later, then the man’s opinion doesn’t really matter at all. God’s opinion is what matters, and the church teaches that the man must intend to follow this mandate or else the marriage isn’t valid. When a woman submits herself in the context of a Catholic marriage, she must do so of her own free will, or the marraige is invalid. Are your problems with Catholic teaching on marriage, current practices, or on how it’s been interpreted through the ages?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why do you ignore all of my questions and respond back with one liners that completelty miss the mark? I feel like I’m stuck in one of those BING commercials where the person says something and the people around them respond back with something other than what the person was originally talking about. youtube.com/watch?v=i1AwFY6MuwE :banghead:

Because what you’re saying isn’t relevant except to Christians who believe as you do.

It doesn’t matter if in an ideal Catholic society full of ideal Catholic men, women could surrender all their power and autonomy safely without fear of being abused. Because we do not and have never lived in such a society.

No one has.
Most likely, no one ever will.

And in the real world, any group that gives up all power and autonomy will inevitably be horribly exploited and abused. In the countries today where women have no legally protected rights or political power they are horribly abused.

 

[Allegra]

We do understand that a woman willingly submitting to her own husband in accordance with her faith is infinatly different from a woman being sold into marriage and forced to do so by law? Right? I’m still trying to figure out if we are arguing against the teaching of the church regarding sacramental marriage or secular legal gender inequalities that no longer seem to be present in our society. As far as I can tell, they are entirely seperate issues and can’t logically be discussed at the same time.

 

[severus68]

I agree. I was saying that tongue in cheek. That seems to be how many folks want to structure society; if they see an animal do it then it is right.

My understanding of wolf packs was they had an alpha male. Is there ever a female who runs the pack alone?

If either the Alpha male or Alpha female dies, the remaining one will lead the pack for awhile. For the long term survival of the pack, it needs both as leaders.

 

[exnihilo]

Moreover what domestic power?
Traditionally Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all believed and taught that the husband and father reigns in his household, and his wife (or wives) and children are all under his authority.

And the husband is under civil authority. Does this mean the husband is not free and has no power?

The mother and wife can have incredible power in her role. She most certainly can make the head of the household do her will. Just read up on the Roman Empire and you’ll see that it was women who decided who would be god and king. And they would then use their control over the god and king to exercise their will.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And the husband is under civil authority. Does this mean the husband is not free and has no power?

The mother and wife can have incredible power in her role. She most certainly can make the head of the household do her will. Just read up on the Roman Empire and you’ll see that it was women who decided who would be god and king. And they would then use their control over the god and king to exercise their will.

You are referring to manipulation.
Are you saying that its good and natural for women to achieve ‘power’ by manipulating men (especially their husbands)?

 

[severus68]

Since coming to this forum I have come across Catholics who say that firm patriarchy is the good and natural norm for the Church and society as a whole.

That men are naturally dominant and women are naturally submissive, and that that is the way it ought to be.

I do not share this view.
For one thing, in practice giving men all the power and women virtually no power and independence always leads to women being viciously exploited and abused by men (I think the best modern day example of this is how women are treated in the Arab world). But the idea of patriarchy being divinely ordained also seems very counter-intuitive to me.

Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are firmly against a great many things. Such as the worship of other/multiple gods, homosexuality, human sacrifice, communing wiht the dead, and trying to manipulate supernatural forces through your own will (e.g. magic). Yet all of these things have been tolerated (and even celebrated) at different times and places throughout history.

In fact, it seems like virtually anything the God of Abraham dislikes (and that is a long list) has flourished at some point in human history.

The fact that things God dislikes frequently flourish is usually justified by the explanation that humans are fallen people in a fallen world, and because of that Satan has great influence in the world. Influence the fallen angel uses to corrupt and distort God’s Creation and plan.

However, this influence has apparently never been used to seriously disrupt male rule of the human species (at least until the last century or so).

To a humanist like myself this seems very suspicious.

Apparently Satan and those under his influence can create societies where things like human sacrifice, male homosexuality, and even the unnecessary and cruel mutilation of baby girls sexual organs are celebrated, but they can’t challenge the Good Ol’ Boy system(s)

So I ask you Catholic defenders of patriarchy (in the home and in society) do you have any rational explanation for this, or this one of those ‘He works in mysterious ways’ type of things (which I don’t consider a real argument at all)?

You wanted responses from Catholic defenders of patriachy. I am not one so I am not sure if you are interested in what I have to say.

I do not believe that God requires a wife to submit to her husband. Some Catholics like to point to Ephesians to justify that position. They never refer to 1 Corinthians 11-12 for example. St Paul said a lot of things, some were on the basis of Jewish culture of that time. He said women should be veiled, the Church does not require this even in church. Some also refer to St Paul likening the relationship of the husband to the wife as Christ to the Church again to justify the subordination of wives. I do not see how any human being ever able to live up to Christ.
The argument that no good Catholic man would abuse his authority over his wife can never be an argument to support the submission of wives. The unfortunate thing is that some women prefer to be in a submissive position perhaps because its easier to let someone else take responsibility for you. I know of Catholic men on CAF who have stated that they would never expect their wives to submit to them.
John Paul II explained marriage as a mutual submission of husband and wife to each other. Catholic marriage vows do not require the wife to obey or submit to her husband.

Sometimes its just fear that want people to maintain a position, right or wrong.