It's Always the Man's Fault

[Eileen_T]

I admit that I sometimes use my husband as an excuse for something I want to get out of doing, but that’s not what this is about.

Jeffrey R. Jackson has written an article “THE RISE OF “DOMESTIC DIVAS” It’s Always the Man’s Fault” for the New Oxford Review which, IMO, is quite insightful.

He writes:

“…women of recent generations have been brought up to “empower” and “assert” themselves against our “patriarchy,” from which they strive to be independent by adopting masculine, competitive ways. At the same time, the men of these same generations have been raised to be less assertive and more sensitive – in other words, feminized – all in the interest of achieving “gender balance” or equality. As we are all aware, society has not been the same since.”

The “domestic divas” he refers to are women who, usually with prefessional qualifications, choose to stay at home with the children while the husband provides.

The only thing wrong with this, the article says, is that these stay-home women want a nanny and a cleaning service. The do not ‘submit’ to their husband and expect to have her cake and eat it too.

The article refers to the ‘feminisation of Catholicism’ and the prevalence of divirce and annullments, which, he says, could be avoided by priests toughening the requirements for pre-marital counselling.

I definitely see his point. In fact, I have read quite a bit of stuff lately written by angry men who advocate not marrying or entering into cohabitation arrangements, to avoid being taken to the cleaners by women.

The time has more than come for Catholic women to start a counter-revolution to affirm our fathers, husbands and sons.
Source: newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1105-jackson

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Eileen T:

The only thing wrong with this, the article says, is that these stay-home women want a nanny and a cleaning service. The do not ‘submit’ to their husband and expect to have her cake and eat it too.

I’m not sure getting a cleaning service has anything to do with submitting to a husband. My own dh would be in favor of it. Not because I don’t clean house, but because he knows that 7.4 dc is a lot of work and he would like to lighten my load.

I definitely see his point. In fact, I have read quite a bit of stuff lately written by angry men who advocate not marrying or entering into cohabitation arrangements, to avoid being taken to the cleaners by women.

There are always women AND men like that, it’s not a submission issue. What about men or women who are horrible tightwads with their family, even though they can afford to be more generous?

---

This is much more a love issue. Some people love their money way too much and they let it ruin their marriages.

 

[Eileen_T]

I don’t think Jackson is trying to say we should return to a 1950’s view of the ‘little woman’. I think the point he is trying to make is that many women today have been brainwashed by the feminist movement to believe that they have been ‘victims’ of a paternalistic society in the past.

I know women who expect their husband to support them, do less housework than him and feel hard-done-by when they can’t get their own way about something. I suspecdt we all do.

I don’t submit to my husband of 32 years in a doormat way, but I acknowledge that he is the head of our family as I am the heart. If he is wrong I will point that out to him. If he doesn’t listen I will repeat myself until he listens (he calls that nagging )

Actually, my husband provided me with a cleaning service, our kids. They had to do chores, it boost character.

Our vows said “for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, for better or for worse, until death do us part”. I didn’t really expect we would get the ‘poorer, sicker or worse’ end of the deal - who does- but it is definitely stay together until death for us.

My eldest son, 29, is ready to settle down and have a family. He is showing signs of being gun-shy about it because he has seen so many marriages break-up, mothers getting custody and divorce settlements etc… He is nervous about finding someone who will be the sticking kind, even among Catholic women.

 

[luvmykids]

The one thing I thought was strange that the article talked about was the views of Scott Hahn. I liked Scott Hahn and thought that he was a pretty orthodox guy. The person who wrote the article made it sound like Scott was putting his own twist on the Adam and Eve story to make it sound like it was the man’s fault. Do you think though that it was PARTLY the man’s fault? Eve didn’t shove the apple down his throat.

 

[CatCat]

The NOR really doesn’t like Scott Hahn. They’ve “critiqued” him, to put it nicely, before. It is a pretty big strike against NOR in my opinion.

And I think anytime we blame only one side of a marriage we’re going to miss most of the big picture. Marriages are not lasting because people on both sides of the aisle at the wedding are not sticking with it. Selfishness, not one gender or another, is at the root of the problem.

 

[Viki59]

“Spiritually speaking, it’s not just clerics or liberal Catholics who are colluding for feminization. At Franciscan University of Steubenville (which has a 60 percent female student body), theology professor Scott Hahn believes the Holy Spirit is a feminine entity and that Adam’s Original Sin came about as a result of his failure to protect Eve from the serpent (whom he says is really a dragon). This radically re-tells the story of man’s Fall. The Original Sin wasn’t, according to Hahn’s suppositions, the serpent tempting Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, followed by Adam doing so only with Eve’s coaxing. Hahn’s fairytale version of events produces a two-fold notion: that Original Sin had nothing to do with Eve’s eating the apple, and that it was Adam’s fault for not protecting Eve, making Adam, not Eve, the primary sinner. With feminism, it’s always the man’s fault.”

I’m with you, luvmykids, Scott Hahn is about as orthodox as they come. He’s brilliant, though, and open to new interpretations, so I can see how he might make some nervous.
I’d like to see documentation of Dr Hahn’s saying the Holy Spirit is feminine. I don’t believe it.
And I think his version of the Fall is valid, Adam didn’t protect Eve so she fell for the serpent’s lies. Both sinned, as God noticed in handing out consequences.

 

[Lapsed]

Biblically speaking, the Hebrew and Aramaic words generally thought to refer to the Holy Spirit in the OT, Shekinah, Sophia, etc. are all feminine. A strong case can be built for the Holy Spirit to have generally been depicted in feminine terms early on. Conceptualizing the Holy Spirit in feminine terms is certainly Biblical.

 

[Ana]

Viki59:

I’m with you, luvmykids, Scott Hahn is about as orthodox as they come. He’s brilliant, though, and open to new interpretations, so I can see how he might make some nervous.
I’d like to see documentation of Dr Hahn’s saying the Holy Spirit is feminine. I don’t believe it.
And I think his version of the Fall is valid, Adam didn’t protect Eve so she fell for the serpent’s lies. Both sinned, as God noticed in handing out consequences.

I’d need to see documentation on the Holy Spirit reference as well. I also agree that his version of the Fall is valid. It is supported by Church teaching, and the Church refers to the Fall, as the “sin of Adam,” not the “sin of Eve,” or even the “sin of Adam and Eve.”

 

[Ana]

Lapsed:

Biblically speaking, the Hebrew and Aramaic words generally thought to refer to the Holy Spirit in the OT, Shekinah, Sophia, etc. are all feminine. A strong case can be built for the Holy Spirit to have generally been depicted in feminine terms early on. Conceptualizing the Holy Spirit in feminine terms is certainly Biblical.

Very interesting!

 

[LSK]

CatCat:

The NOR really doesn’t like Scott Hahn. They’ve “critiqued” him, to put it nicely, before. It is a pretty big strike against NOR in my opinion.

And I think anytime we blame only one side of a marriage we’re going to miss most of the big picture. Marriages are not lasting because people on both sides of the aisle at the wedding are not sticking with it. Selfishness, not one gender or another, is at the root of the problem.

This is a wonderful post :clapping: .

One of the biggest problems I have with trying to express myself on this type of issue is that I can truly see both sides of the issue. I do not ever want to be told I cannot try to do something simply because of my gender. Tell me I am not physically strong enough, I am not smart enough or I don’t have the right kind of training or formal education…but do not tell me I am precluded from doing something - ANYTHING - simply because I am a female…UNLESS (and this is where the virtue of obedience MUST be practiced) it is taught to me by the Holy Mother Church and rooted in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. That is why it does not upset me that I cannot become a priest. Instead, I take great comfort in knowing that I can bring to the table of Catholic Christianity MY gifts as an Obedient Daughter of the Holy Mother Church and they are of equal value of those brought to the table by my brothers in Christ.

I am not currently married - I am a widow and have been since my husband died 18 years ago. One of the reasons (ONE of them…there are many) that I am not married now is that I have found it difficult to find a partner that truly wishes for a woman to stand BESIDE him in marriage. While I acknowledge that the husband is the head of the domestic church, I also believe that unless both partners are regarded with equal love and respect, honor and devotion.

The idea that one or the other gender is more or less at fault is wrong. If, however, one wants to look at society as a whole and how we have let down our own standards for fear of being called ‘intolerant’ ? Maybe that would be a better place to start…I don’t know…I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I am GREAT at coming up with more questions!

 

[C_S_P_B]

Many wives want to love their husband as a saint. All women are married to sinners and many won’t allow their husband to think he is a saint. They want their husband to know and acknowledge that he is a sinner and therefore must improve. She must point out his faults and sins, so he can become a better man.

So then a man may eventually acknowledge that he is a great sinner, and that he has hurt her. Now the wife has confirmation of his sinfulness. Her actions were then justified because of who he is. His is a sinner and not a saint. She will believe she can love him when he becomes more saintly but is unwilling to give up her success at showing him that he is a sinner and the primary cause of their difficulties.

Well, I can acknowlege my greater sin. Still I am comforted by the example of the Holy Family. As good as St. Joseph was, he was infinitly more sinful than the Virgin Mary (because she was Immaculately Conceived). She loved him and followed his lead when he moved the family to Egypt.

Her love and repect inspired him to be the great man he was. Think about the situation. A mere man, born with sin, was the head of a household consisting of a sinless wife and the Son of God.

 

[Orionthehunter]

luvmykids:

The one thing I thought was strange that the article talked about was the views of Scott Hahn. I liked Scott Hahn and thought that he was a pretty orthodox guy. The person who wrote the article made it sound like Scott was putting his own twist on the Adam and Eve story to make it sound like it was the man’s fault. Do you think though that it was PARTLY the man’s fault? Eve didn’t shove the apple down his throat.

Adam has to take great responsibility for his failing. If Adam had been a real man, he would have understood that his wife’s feminine nature would make her susceptible to engaging in conversation others (even those who intend her harm). If he had been a real man, he’d have interjected himself between his wife and said “get away from her Satan.” Instead he was a wimp. He failed his Creator and his partner-wife. However, his failure doesn’t negate Eve’s failure to look outside God and her marriage for greater wisdom and happiness.

 

[beckyann2597]

From
Genesis 3
12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me–she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”
13
The LORD God then asked the woman, “Why did you do such a thing?” The woman answered, “The serpent tricked me into it, so I ate it.”

I have heard Scott Hahn talk about Adam and Eve and he spoke about this passage and how yeah, Eve made the initial mistake, but Adam went along with it and then when confronted niether of them fessed up! It reminded him of children getting caught and then diverting blame when confronted. Adam is saying “Its her fault!” then Eve says “No, I was tricked!”

 

[LSK]

Orionthehunter:

Adam has to take great responsibility for his failing. If Adam had been a real man, he would have understood that his wife’s feminine nature would make her susceptible to engaging in conversation others (even those who intend her harm). If he had been a real man, he’d have interjected himself between his wife and said “get away from her Satan.” Instead he was a wimp. He failed his Creator and his partner-wife. However, his failure doesn’t negate Eve’s failure to look outside God and her marriage for greater wisdom and happiness.

uh oh - you mean God didn’t create a REAL MAN???

Don’t tell me he created some sort of primate that later evolved into a real man…

I’m just kidding…

Look, I don’t think this is an Adam vs. Eve thing…the fact is we can go around and around on this- quite frankly, if Eve had been a strong woman she would not have given into temptation . If Adam had been a strong man he would not have given into temptation. I think the point of the story is not to figure out who was at fault or who should have protected whom, it is to teach us that humans have free will but that they are obligated, through prayer and study, to conform that will to God’s Will. If they do not, then they will not be strong enough to resist the temptations that come to them every day.
But that was not the purpose of this thread, and if we get into a discussion of Adam and Eve and who was stronger than whom and whose nature was what and get to insulting genders then we will have hijacked the thread from the OP and violated the forum rules. So let’s not do that and let’s get back on track with this wonderful discussion. Do we REALLY think it is always one genders fault that a marriage fails or, like CatCat pointed out, is it a growing selfishness and self-centeredness found on both sides of the aisle that has contributed to this problem?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

LSK:

uh oh - you mean God didn’t create a REAL MAN???

Don’t tell me he created some sort of primate that later evolved into a real man…

I’m just kidding…

Look, I don’t think this is an Adam vs. Eve thing…the fact is we can go around and around on this- quite frankly, if Eve had been a strong woman she would not have given into temptation . If Adam had been a strong man he would not have given into temptation. I think the point of the story is not to figure out who was at fault or who should have protected whom, it is to teach us that humans have free will but that they are obligated, through prayer and study, to conform that will to God’s Will. If they do not, then they will not be strong enough to resist the temptations that come to them every day.
But that was not the purpose of this thread, and if we get into a discussion of Adam and Eve and who was stronger than whom and whose nature was what and get to insulting genders then we will have hijacked the thread from the OP and violated the forum rules. So let’s not do that and let’s get back on track with this wonderful discussion. Do we REALLY think it is always one genders fault that a marriage fails or, like CatCat pointed out, is it a growing selfishness and self-centeredness found on both sides of the aisle that has contributed to this problem?

Of course Adam wasn’t a “real man.” Until Jesus, there was no such thing as a “real man.” Our Lady is the “real woman.” They are normal–the standard, those meeting the norm–and we are in need of redemption.

When we get all worked up about whether God is masculine or feminine, we are usually projecting our masculinity and feminity on God. The true masculine and feminine are far from what you’d think by using men and women as the norm. In God, there is both masculine and feminine, in complete Unity, without rancor or division. Absolute Personality in Absolute Unity is not a paradox unless you try to understand it from our false position. It is, in fact, the blueprint for all Creation. We’re just too blind to see it, too jaded by what we think masculinity and femininity are all about.

Every marriage that fails does so for its own reasons. In some, one spouse refuses the call. In others, both. In others, which are invalid, one or neither was ever fit to live the marriage in the first place. But a lack of generosity that is perpetuated by the expectation of absolute reciprocity–I won’t give my 50% until you give your 50%–is, I think, the unadmitted culprit in many failed marriages.

 

[Island_Oak]

Eileen T:

Jeffrey R. Jackson has written an article “THE RISE OF “DOMESTIC DIVAS” It’s Always the Man’s Fault” for the New Oxford Review which, IMO, is quite insightful.

Sounds like a title filled with all the inflamatory buzz words designed to stir up controversy and maximize magazine sales and interview opportunities.

He writes: The “domestic divas” he refers to are women who, usually with prefessional qualifications, choose to stay at home with the children while the husband provides.

…and if these same women took their professional qualifications out into the marketplace and earned a living they would be criticized for abandoning their kids and being selfish.

The only thing wrong with this, the article says, is that these stay-home women want a nanny and a cleaning service. The do not ‘submit’ to their husband and expect to have her cake and eat it too.

Since when has it become a moral failing to have domestic help?! Many of us do not have the benefit of being surrounded by family who, because of distance or lack of inclination, will help with the children. Moreover, if you assume the best, instead of the worst of people, someone who is a faithful Catholic and welcomes multiple children into their life needs more than one adult in the home to care for the 4-5-6+ kids, do laundry, clean, prepare meals, shop, taxi, help with homework, etc. If such a woman is so blessed as to have a huband who supports her desire to be home full-time and acknowledges the need for help with domestic chores and can afford to hire the help–I say all the better for the family to have a sane, less-stressed and happy mother.

No offense to the OP but this article sounds like it offers a lot of nonsense intended to cause division, not unity.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Island Oak:

Since when has it become a moral failing to have domestic help?! Many of us do not have the benefit of being surrounded by family who, because of distance or lack of inclination, will help with the children.

It is not. If a person, any person, uses their wealth as an excuse not to contribute from the energy, ability, and talents God has given them, that would be sloth, a moral fault. But it is just as possible for a family to realize that domestic duties keep one or more of them from contributing as they could.

This is not to downplay the dignity of housework as useful work, but if paying someone to do work that you don’t need to do allows you to have the time and energy to make a contribution that only you can make, it may be that you ought to part with the money and let them do it. I can see very easily, for instance, how having cleaners come in might allow a stay-at-home mom to home school a rather large “student body” and still keep her sanity and a greater measure of time-consuming family traditions. There are many things that only a mom can do, but cleaning the toilet isn’t one of them.

The problem when a spouse gets a sense of entitlement. Husbands and dads get that, too, sometimes. It is bad for the family, in either case. That doesn’t make it a sin to let out the jobs of home care, inside the house or out.

 

[DaveBj]

Lapsed:

Biblically speaking, the Hebrew and Aramaic words generally thought to refer to the Holy Spirit in the OT, Shekinah, Sophia, etc. are all feminine. A strong case can be built for the Holy Spirit to have generally been depicted in feminine terms early on. Conceptualizing the Holy Spirit in feminine terms is certainly Biblical.

The fact that a word is grammatically feminine does not make the referent feminine. In the NT the greek word is neuter, but that does not make the Spirit a eunoch. In fact, sometimes the NT writers broke the grammatical rule that a pronoun must agree with its antecedent and used the masculine pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit.

DaveBj

 

[Lapsed]

I’m certainly not arguing that the Holy Spirit is feminine. God is God and has no gender except the Son in assuming flesh. I was simply pointing out that in the Jewish tradition that person of God which has been further revealed as the Holy Spirit in the new covenant has always been spoken of in feminine terms of reference. This is a frame of reference that goes beyond simple noun gender and is deeply imbedded in Jewish tradition, particularly mystic traditions, in relation to such concepts as the Shekinah glory and Sophia. I’m just pointing out that feminine terminology applied to the Holy Spirit is in keeping with the oldest Biblical traditions.