Should women be treated as equals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
niceatheist said:
If my daughter doesn’t want to be a mother,
Click to expand...
According to the Church, if your daughter is Catholic or married in the Catholic church, both husband and wife are to be open to life and she is to be open to the responsibilities of motherhood. The children then are her first responsibility after her husband.

Motherhood is not a punishment. It is a blessing.

If a woman does not want motherhood, then Catholic options would be possibly a religious community, or a consecrated life but again a married Catholic is to be open to life.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
If a woman does not want motherhood, then Catholic options would be possibly a religious community, or a consecrated life but again a married Catholic is to be open to life.
Click to expand...
The single, secular life is also a perfectly acceptable, perfectly Catholic, option.
 
Sure you can. But if you’re primary reason to exist is to be a mother, then all the career advancement problems rear their heads.
 
So you aren’t going to defend your position? Okay.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
Sure you can. But if you’re primary reason to exist is to be a mother, then all the career advancement problems rear their heads.
Click to expand...
I don’t think motherhood and career advancement needs to be mutually exclusive. Many mothers integrate both motherhood and career very well and are very successful. And nobody said anyone’s primary reason to exist is to be a mother.
 
Not according to Mulieris Dignitatem’s conclusion:

Therefore the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for “perfect” women and for “weak” women - for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal “homeland” of all people and is transformed sometimes into a “valley of tears”; as they assume, together with men, a common responsibility for the destiny of humanity according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity.
 
edwest211 said:
Her embrace of Marxist class warfare brands her a Marxist. In 1972, she co-founded Ms. Magazine. Ms. was created by women who didn’t want to be seen as being ‘owned’ by a man. A very divisive concept.
Click to expand...
I am confused. Do you think that women should ‘be seen as being “owned” by a man’? Also, since you refer to it implicitly, the distinction between Miss for an unmarried woman and Mrs for a married woman is a linguistic oddity now largely peculiar to the English language. For example, Madame, Frau, and Pani are used to address all adult women in French-, German-, and Polish-speaking societies, respectively. I also feel we need for evidence for the assertion that Gloria Steinem is a Marxist engaged in class warfare.
 
I didnt say that. She can have a career. If single, no problem. If married it must be in the proper priority of family first.
 
Much of Marxisn is found in feminism.
Londoner said:
Do you think that women should ‘be seen as being “owned” by a man’?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t that they were owned by a man but the believed that they were owned by a man.

When a man and woman marries they become one. The Ms movement did not like that. They wanted independence, separation. They no longer wanted to be one.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
Much of Marxisn is found in feminism.
Click to expand...
Really? Much of a economic and political system advocating total government control of a country’s property and resources is found in a movement advocating for womens’ rights?

Y’all really must have a deep imagination to be able to link everything to Communism.
 
Read anything she’s written. I watched her on TV. Here was a total stranger telling all women what to do. It had all the earmarks of Marxist class warfare.

Women, the eternal victims class.
Men, the eternal enemies class.

It was a classic ‘liberation’ movement. My mother asked me, “What do these women want?” Aside from equal pay for equal work, there was nothing worth mentioning. As a feminist icon, she still appears at key events as a spokesman for Second Wave Feminism. Supposedly, in the present, there is Third Wave Feminism, which appears to be totally bankrupt.

Ms. Steinem also associated with others who held equally radical views, like Betty Friedan who compared the family to “a comfortable concentration camp.”
 
Last edited:
If there’s one useful thing that came out of Marxist theory, it was the notion of class struggle. It had by and large either not been considered by previous historians, or largely ignored, even though you can’t even meaningfully talk about the Roman Social War or the French Revolution without discussing class struggle.
 
No one said being a Catholic woman you couldn’t have a career but that career should not come before your family.
Your husband and children should come first.
 
An interesting account. So really, women aren’t inferior as people, they’re just of a lower rank, and their husbands are like generals. Of course, that means following orders, doing as one is told, and any license for (name removed by moderator)ut on any family action is based purely on whether the husband wants any (name removed by moderator)ut.

So what happens if you’re husband is a foolish man? What happens if he is a tyrant? What happens if he makes a decision that clearly is going to put the family in crisis, and he orders you not to give him any further (name removed by moderator)ut and will accept no criticism?

Oh sure, you can say “Well, he’s a bad husband and a bad example”, but if the military analogy is taken to its conclusion, a wife has but two choices; go along with bad orders, or mutiny. And the latter seems off the table because, well, she’s subordinate, and mutiny is an offense, a crime really.

So what is the Catholic view of wives who refuse to take bad orders? Are they intelligent human beings who see catastrophe and want no part in it, or are they insubordinate inferiors who, when the order is given, must follow regardless of consequences?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top