Is it okay to believe that females are degenerated males?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
Is it okay to believe that females are physically degenerated males -in the sense that the making of a woman is based on a supposed fluke of nature (as Aquinas held)?

and what does this mean: "On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator.

It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other. Aristotle’s designation of woman as an incomplete or mutilated man (“De animal. gennerat.”, II, 3d ed. Berol., 773a) must, therefore, be rejected." Catholic Encyclopedia

If I define females the way I do, am I making men absolutely perfect? And what does absolutely perfect mean in this context, the encyclopedia isn’t too clear.
 
I think one would have to look at what he actually said…I do not that exactly those terms (though yes I know he had inherited some wrong ideas there I think from greek philosophy…) but it does not matter much what it was…here is what the Church teaches:

Catechism:

Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM

Such is what one is to hold 🙂
 
fakename said:
“On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place…”
Click to expand...
That gets pretty hard to follow, given that this is wrong, in the first place…
 
fakename said:
Is it okay to believe that females are physically degenerated males -in the sense that the making of a woman is based on a supposed fluke of nature (as Aquinas held)?

and what does this mean: "On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator.

It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other. Aristotle’s designation of woman as an incomplete or mutilated man (“De animal. gennerat.”, II, 3d ed. Berol., 773a) must, therefore, be rejected." Catholic Encyclopedia

If I define females the way I do, am I making men absolutely perfect? And what does absolutely perfect mean in this context, the encyclopedia isn’t too clear.
Click to expand...
Aren’t we all biologically female at first? One could thus make the argument that males are physically degenerated females. And it is known that women are internally stronger than men on several measures, including the ability to withstand physical pain and with respect to longevity. There are some differences regarding mental capacity in various domains; but they are not as significant as once believed. However, the answer to your question is of course not! Certainly not from a theological perspective. The social history of women is another issue. Aristotle got a lot of things wrong. For example, he came up with a theory of normal forgetting based solely on the passage of time. This is a simplistic notion, which has been disproved several times over.
 
meltzerboy said:
Aren’t we all biologically female at first?
Click to expand...
Yes, embryonic development shows that female is the base template and male is a deviation from it. That is why guys have nipples. Aquinas was a smart guy and a brilliant theologian, but he lived at a time when scientific understanding was much more limited than it is today.

As others have noted, theologically the Church teaches that men and women have equal but complementary natures. So neither male nor female would be considered a degeneration of the other.
 
Dale_M said:
Yes, embryonic development shows that female is the base template and male is a deviation from it. That is why guys have nipples. Aquinas was a smart guy and a brilliant theologian, but he lived at a time when scientific understanding was much more limited than it is today.

As others have noted, theologically the Church teaches that men and women have equal but complementary natures. So neither male nor female would be considered a degeneration of the other.
Click to expand...
So, the question is, the deviation from the basic template, is it a design improvement? 😃
 
fakename said:
Is it okay to believe that females are physically degenerated males -in the sense that the making of a woman is based on a supposed fluke of nature (as Aquinas held)?

and what does this mean: "On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator.

It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other. Aristotle’s designation of woman as an incomplete or mutilated man (“De animal. gennerat.”, II, 3d ed. Berol., 773a) must, therefore, be rejected." Catholic Encyclopedia

If I define females the way I do, am I making men absolutely perfect? And what does absolutely perfect mean in this context, the encyclopedia isn’t too clear.
Click to expand...
Yes, men are absolutely perfect in every way.
 
fakename said:
Is it okay to believe that females are physically degenerated males -in the sense that the making of a woman is based on a supposed fluke of nature (as Aquinas held)?

and what does this mean: "On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator.

It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other. Aristotle’s designation of woman as an incomplete or mutilated man (“De animal. gennerat.”, II, 3d ed. Berol., 773a) must, therefore, be rejected." Catholic Encyclopedia

If I define females the way I do, am I making men absolutely perfect? And what does absolutely perfect mean in this context, the encyclopedia isn’t too clear.
Click to expand...
Might I ask why this is of concern to you?
 
catharina said:
Might I ask why this is of concern to you?
Click to expand...
  1. Aquinas is rarely proven wrong, so I feel naturally skeptical that women aren’t degenerated men.
  2. In itself, depending on how you define the words in his argument, it might be true that women are degenerated men -It all depends on how medieval theorists defined sperm and etc.
 
fakename said:
  1. Aquinas is rarely proven wrong, so I feel naturally skeptical that women aren’t degenerated men.
  2. In itself, depending on how you define the words in his argument, it might be true that women are degenerated men -It all depends on how medieval theorists defined sperm and etc.
Click to expand...
As I recall, medievalists defined sperm as the power property.
They had no actual concept of the egg and conception resulting
from union of both sperm and egg.
 
fakename said:
  1. Aquinas is rarely proven wrong, so I feel naturally skeptical that women aren’t degenerated men.
  2. In itself, depending on how you define the words in his argument, it might be true that women are degenerated men -It all depends on how medieval theorists defined sperm and etc.
Click to expand...
Well - rarely does not equate with never. He has been shown to be in error at times, and this would be one of those times. Men are not better than women, and women are not better than men in the “big picture” of things. God created man and woman to be help-mates to one another, and not for one to have dominion over the other. God took the rib from Adam’s side to create Eve, symbolizing not only that she is part of him, but that they are to walk “side-by-side” in this world as equals.

The two, when joined by God (as He did) become one. So, in theory, it could be said that separate, male and female are incomplete beings, but together, they are complete.

To use the word “degenerated” when describing women is somewhat insulting in my opinion. There is nothing “degenerate” about the female gender. Women are also created in the perfect image of God. God did not create anything “degenerated”. All was “good” in God’s creation as Genesis demonstrates.

And, yes, all humans begin life as a female until about the 6th week, then horomones kick in and start the process of change. The gonads will either become ovaries or testicles and if a male, these gonads will descend to become testicles, and that is why at times there are males with undescended testicles. Sometimes this process of change (from female to male) does not become complete and you will end up with hermaphrodites.
 
No, females are not degenerated males.

Both are created equal in God’s image.

God first created man. He saw it was good. Then He created female and saw it was very good! He could not improve on that model, so He rested! 😃 j/k 😉
 
CEM5 said:
Well - rarely does not equate with never. He has been shown to be in error at times, and this would be one of those times. Men are not better than women, and women are not better than men in the “big picture” of things. God created man and woman to be help-mates to one another, and not for one to have dominion over the other. God took the rib from Adam’s side to create Eve, symbolizing not only that she is part of him, but that they are to walk “side-by-side” in this world as equals.

The two, when joined by God (as He did) become one. So, in theory, it could be said that separate, male and female are incomplete beings, but together, they are complete.

To use the word “degenerated” when describing women is somewhat insulting in my opinion. There is nothing “degenerate” about the female gender. Women are also created in the perfect image of God. God did not create anything “degenerated”. All was “good” in God’s creation as Genesis demonstrates.

And, yes, all humans begin life as a female until about the 6th week, then horomones kick in and start the process of change. The gonads will either become ovaries or testicles and if a male, these gonads will descend to become testicles, and that is why at times there are males with undescended testicles. Sometimes this process of change (from female to male) does not become complete and you will end up with hermaphrodites.
Click to expand...
Degenerated doesn’t imply that women weren’t good but that, on the part of the sperm’s functions, something needed to be missing if a woman is to be produced -namely that quality which allows the sperm to function normally (to make a male). So a female is degenerate since the sperm was hindered -not that she’s naturally degenerated but only accidentally so.
 
fakename said:
Degenerated doesn’t imply that women weren’t good but that, on the part of the sperm’s functions, something needed to be missing if a woman is to be produced -namely that quality which allows the sperm to function normally (to make a male).
Click to expand...
We know that the sex of individual is determined by whether a particular sperm carries an X chromosome or a Y chromosome. However, the sperm which carries an X chromosome is not deficient in lacking a Y chromosome. A sperm cell carries either one or the other, and it functions normally no matter which sex chromosome it carries.
 
fakename said:
  1. Aquinas is rarely proven wrong, so I feel naturally skeptical that women aren’t degenerated men.
  2. In itself, depending on how you define the words in his argument, it might be true that women are degenerated men -It all depends on how medieval theorists defined sperm and etc.
Click to expand...
I don’t suppose you’d mind posting the reference so we can all read the Aquinas statement that you are referring to?

Also, you can put you mind to rest as to how we are to view females, because the Church has answered your question, and that answer was previously provided:
Bookcat said:
…here is what the Church teaches:

Catechism:

Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1B.HTM

Such is what one is to hold 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top