Is it okay to believe that females are degenerated males?

[fhansen]

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.

Only God is perfect anyway. Our “perfections” are all lesser-and relative. Since you can’t have men without women-and vice versa-and since we, ideally, complement each other, then there is no perfect human in terms of sex-just differences. And how could the complex systems inherent in the female body which give it the ability to conceive, sustain, birth, and later nurture life indicate a degenerated, mutilated body anyway?

 

[fakename]

Only God is perfect anyway. Our “perfections” are all lesser-and relative. Since you can’t have men without women-and vice versa-and since we, ideally, complement each other, then there is no perfect human in terms of sex-just differences. And how could the complex systems inherent in the female body which give it the ability to conceive, sustain, birth, and later nurture life indicate a degenerated, mutilated body anyway?

Here’s the “physics” behind “degeneracy”:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.”

Here Aquinas responds to the idea that women should not have been created since they were defective, but nothing defective should’ve been made, so neither should women be made.

I don’t understand how past philosophers expected the human race to survive, except by an accident called, “women” -a strange position for such philosophers to take since it is against their spirit to found natural laws on the fortuitous?

 

[Lynxdk]

I don’t understand how past philosophers expected the human race to survive, except by an accident called, “women” -a strange position for such philosophers to take since it is against their spirit to found natural laws on the fortuitous?

I’m curious if you ~purposely~ phrase things in such a way to try to claim that Women are an “accident” in order to stress some point you wish to convey? If so, Why not be direct about it, instead of couching things in terms of feigned ignorance?

Lord help you, otherwise =P

 

[severus68]

Here’s the “physics” behind “degeneracy”:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.”

Here Aquinas responds to the idea that women should not have been created since they were defective, but nothing defective should’ve been made, so neither should women be made.

I don’t understand how past philosophers expected the human race to survive, except by an accident called, “women” -a strange position for such philosophers to take since it is against their spirit to found natural laws on the fortuitous?

At the site you got this quote from, it is stated that Aquinas was responding to what Aristotle had said about women and an explaination on where Aquinas was wrong. Why did you not quote that too?
Your topic is provocative to say the least. No, we cannot refer to women as degenerated males, as misbegotten or the like. Men and women are equal, both made in the image of God.

 

[fakename]

At the site you got this quote from, it is stated that Aquinas was responding to what Aristotle had said about women and an explaination on where Aquinas was wrong. Why did you not quote that too?
Your topic is provocative to say the least. No, we cannot refer to women as degenerated males, as misbegotten or the like. Men and women are equal, both made in the image of God.

As far as I know, it seems that I always post out of good faith -and not to be provocative no matter how provocative the topic seems in itself.

And as far as I know, the site that I quoted does contradict Aquinas but I don’t understand their explanation. But I thought it was probable that most others knew the explanation since the explanation must be a big part about Catholicism (dealing as it does with a very common subject). So I trusted that others would bring up any explanations they had in this thread.

But as far as I know, the place where I directly quoted from (the Summa) doesn’t contradict the idea that females were degenerate, and St. Thomas doesn’t disagree with the assessment.

But I realize I still have a question: Although I know that it is not good to believe in the degeneracy thesis, I’m not sure why it is not good. Now clearly St. Thomas didn’t think that women were unequal in the worth of human nature, just that they were mistakes of nature in some way. So these two ideas are reconcilable with each other such that just stating that women are equal doesn’t guarantee a decisive defense of the idea that they aren’t misbegotten. Unless one means women are “strictly equal” which is impossible since strict equality implies physical equality which is impossible and it goes against church teaching in which women are not strictly equal but have unique skills and weaknesses.

 

[fhansen]

As far as I know, it seems that I always post out of good faith -and not to be provocative no matter how provocative the topic seems in itself.

And as far as I know, the site that I quoted does contradict Aquinas but I don’t understand their explanation. But I thought it was probable that most others knew the explanation since the explanation must be a big part about Catholicism (dealing as it does with a very common subject). So I trusted that others would bring up any explanations they had in this thread.

But as far as I know, the place where I directly quoted from (the Summa) doesn’t contradict the idea that females were degenerate, and St. Thomas doesn’t disagree with the assessment.

But I realize I still have a question: Although I know that it is not good to believe in the degeneracy thesis, I’m not sure why it is not good. Now clearly St. Thomas didn’t think that women were unequal in the worth of human nature, just that they were mistakes of nature in some way. So these two ideas are reconcilable with each other such that just stating that women are equal doesn’t guarantee a decisive defense of the idea that they aren’t misbegotten. Unless one means women are “strictly equal” which is impossible since strict equality implies physical equality which is impossible and it goes against church teaching in which women are not strictly equal but have unique skills and weaknesses.

Even if the point about degeneracy were somehow true-rather than the unscientific theory it seems obvious to be-it would still be merely a trivial, academic point since it’s agreed that human beings are of equal worth in terms of their nature.

 

[severus68]

As far as I know, it seems that I always post out of good faith -and not to be provocative no matter how provocative the topic seems in itself.

And as far as I know, the site that I quoted does contradict Aquinas but I don’t understand their explanation. But I thought it was probable that most others knew the explanation since the explanation must be a big part about Catholicism (dealing as it does with a very common subject). So I trusted that others would bring up any explanations they had in this thread.

But as far as I know, the place where I directly quoted from (the Summa) doesn’t contradict the idea that females were degenerate, and St. Thomas doesn’t disagree with the assessment.

But I realize I still have a question: Although I know that it is not good to believe in the degeneracy thesis, I’m not sure why it is not good. Now clearly St. Thomas didn’t think that women were unequal in the worth of human nature, just that they were mistakes of nature in some way. So these two ideas are reconcilable with each other such that just stating that women are equal doesn’t guarantee a decisive defense of the idea that they aren’t misbegotten. Unless one means women are “strictly equal” which is impossible since strict equality implies physical equality which is impossible and it goes against church teaching in which women are not strictly equal but have unique skills and weaknesses.

I do not understand what you hope to get from this thread.

St Thomas Aquinas got it wrong on the biology.

If women are not strictly equal to men, then men would not be strictly equal to women.

 

[fakename]

I do not understand what you hope to get from this thread.

St Thomas Aquinas got it wrong on the biology.

If women are not strictly equal to men, then men would not be strictly equal to women.

What counterargument is there to St.Aquinas?

Again, “strictly equal” is said in many ways: equality in dignity, equality in biology, etc.

Now clearly they are not biologically strictly equal or else female would be male. As a consequence, the biological equality of one doesn’t have to do with the equality in essential dignity or else they would have to be truly males to be of the same dignity.

So if it isn’t against the dignity of the female to be physically malformed, then even less is it possible for an accident of their generation to cause them to be less dignified.

So what’s so bad about believing that woman’s birth is mistake of nature?

 

[severus68]

What counterargument is there to St.Aquinas?

Again, “strictly equal” is said in many ways: equality in dignity, equality in biology, etc.

Now clearly they are not biologically strictly equal or else female would be male. As a consequence, the biological equality of one doesn’t have to do with the equality in essential dignity or else they would have to be truly males to be of the same dignity.

So if it isn’t against the dignity of the female to be physically malformed, then even less is it possible for an accident of their generation to cause them to be less dignified.

So what’s so bad about believing that woman’s birth is mistake of nature?

God does not make mistakes and God made woman.

 

[goldangel]

Here’s the “physics” behind “degeneracy”:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.”

Here Aquinas responds to the idea that women should not have been created since they were defective, but nothing defective should’ve been made, so neither should women be made.

I don’t understand how past philosophers expected the human race to survive, except by an accident called, “women” -a strange position for such philosophers to take since it is against their spirit to found natural laws on the fortuitous?

occam’s razor (the simplest most common-sense explanation is often not always but often true).

which is more likely: 1/2 the human race is an accident of nature? or

when aquinas and aristotle were writing, they did not understand the reproductive process as we do today. they believed the woman was basically the empty vessel for the man’s seed b/c they did not understand the nature of her genetic contribution. they also lived in societies that strongly preferred males for inheritance and other reasons. so in the absence of modern scientific understanding they wrote philosophy and theology to justify what they saw in society which was that women were inferior.

 

[JoArtist]

occam’s razor (the simplest most common-sense explanation is often not always but often true).

which is more likely: 1/2 the human race is an accident of nature? or

when aquinas and aristotle were writing, they did not understand the reproductive process as we do today. they believed the woman was basically the empty vessel for the man’s seed b/c they did not understand the nature of her genetic contribution. they also lived in societies that strongly preferred males for inheritance and other reasons. so in the absence of modern scientific understanding they wrote philosophy and theology to justify what they saw in society which was that women were inferior.

Actually over 1/2 of the human race is female.

 

[Catholic90]

So what’s so bad about believing that woman’s birth is mistake of nature?

Because it is a false belief.

What makes you so against women?

What is your real agenda?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

I prefer the term mutant

And our mutant superpower is the ability to get other humans pregnant.

 

[Ahimsa]

You’re aware that etymologically male and female aren’t connected right?

But man and wo-man are.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Which is kind of ironic because men have generally been considered the default/better version of humanity throughout human history. Of course the first post in this thread is precisely about that kind of reasoning.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So, the question is, the deviation from the basic template, is it a design improvement?

That’s probably what Aristotle would have assumed if he knew as much about biology as he thought he did.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, men are absolutely perfect in every way.

AWESOME!

I always knew I was perfect

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Aquinas’s (and of course Aristotle’s) conclusions about women were based on faulty and inaccurate assumptions about biology (especially sperm). He has been proven wrong for a long time now.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Yes, they thought that everything that would become the baby came from the sperm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**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.

YES IT DOES IMPLY THAT!

Here’s the definition of the term.

Degenerated:

adj.

1. Having declined, as in function or nature, from a former or original state: a degenerate form of an ancient folk art.
2. Having fallen to an inferior or undesirable state, especially in mental or moral qualities.
3. Physics Relating to two or more quantum states that share the same quantum numbers: degenerate energy levels.
4. Physics Characterized by great density and consisting of atoms stripped of electrons: degenerate matter.
5. Medicine Characterized by degeneration, as of tissue, a cell, or an organ.
6. Biology Having lost one or more highly developed functions, characteristics, or structures through evolution: a degenerate life form.
7. Genetics Having more than one codon that may code for the same amino acid.
   n.
8. A depraved, corrupt, or vicious person.
9. A person lacking or having progressively lost normative biological or psychological characteristics.
   intr.v. (–rt) de·gen·er·at·ed, de·gen·er·at·ing, de·gen·er·ates
10. To fall below a normal or desirable state, especially functionally or morally; deteriorate: old water pipes that are degenerating with age; a dispute that degenerated into a brawl.
11. To decline in quality: The quality of his writing degenerated as he continued to drink.
12. To undergo degeneration.

Link to Source: thefreedictionary.com/degenerated