Should women be treated as equals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
First show me where I said any of that?

Then the next thing is who decides if your husband is making a bad choice?

Feminists always bring up the “tyrant” example.

If your husband asks you to sin, then yes you have a right to refuse. Otherwise he is the final decision maker but he is also to love his wife which means listening to her (name removed by moderator)ut
 
Last edited:
But your husband’s career comes first, right? After all, he’s the boss, and apparently being the head of the family is his simply because he has the right sex organs. So a woman must only seek personal fulfillment insofar as it fits within her role as a subordinate whose job is to produce children and do what she’s told. Careers are things she does on the side, if she can and if she is permitted.

Or she can not marry, stay a virgin, and defy her apparent basic nature and purpose in the world.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
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
First show me where I said any of that?
The post you linked to said it.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
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
First show me where I said any of that?

Then the next thing is who decides if your husband is making a bad choice?

Feminists always bring up the “tyrant” example.

If your husband asks you to sin, then yes you have a right to refuse. Otherwise he is the final decision maker but he is also to love his wife which means listening to her (name removed by moderator)ut
And if his decision is to lead to ruin for the family? There are lots of errors that fall below sin. So unless it reaches the level of sin, a woman is not use her intellect, or at least not speak it out loud unless asked? In that case, women well and truly are not equal, are subordinates and are constrained by this family ranking system.
 
and apparently being the head of the family is his simply because he has the right sex organs
He is the head of the family because God planned it that way.

Your anger is being shown by putting words and extreme examples in my mouth and I am not going to respond to the way out extreme examples.

Marriage is about two people being one and working together not separately.
 
Last edited:
40.png
niceatheist:
and apparently being the head of the family is his simply because he has the right sex organs
He is the head of the family because God planned it that way.

Your anger is being shown by putting words and extreme examples in my mouth.

Marriage is about two people being one and working together not separately.
Not my anger, my mystery at the notion that a wife is essentially of lower rank to a husband. Have you even read the article you cited?
 
Not my anger, my mystery at the notion that a wife is essentially of lower rank to a husband. Have you even read the article you cited?
To be fair, the position expressed in that article would be considered an extreme and incorrect position by the vast majority of Catholics. Not saying that sentiment doesn’t still exist in the Church, but you won’t find many lay Catholics in real life that agree with it.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
Not my anger, my mystery at the notion that a wife is essentially of lower rank to a husband. Have you even read the article you cited?
To be fair, the position expressed in that article would be considered an extreme and incorrect position by the vast majority of Catholics. Not saying that sentiment doesn’t still exist in the Church, but you won’t find many lay Catholics in real life that agree with it.
If women are truly equal as persons, that means they have personal autonomy. I’m not saying that gives them the right to walk out on their children, but it certainly means they have a voice in the family, and when they’re husband, for lack of a better word, is an idiot, then she made need to take control of the family for its own good. I’ve seen that with my own eyes.

I don’t want a wife who just does what she’s told. I want a partner who has free will and the confidence not to cooperate should I choose a foolish path, and has the confidence to say so.
 
Or she can not marry, stay a virgin, and defy her apparent basic nature and purpose in the world.
Or she could take feminists advice - not marry, be promiscuous, pursue a professional career first instead of having kids first when her fertility is peaked, and then at age 40 realize she has a great resume but no family that she desperately wants and her fertility is gone and on top of that she can’t find a husband since all the good ones are either already married or are looking for women in their 20s.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
Not my anger, my mystery at the notion that a wife is essentially of lower rank to a husband. Have you even read the article you cited?
Not once did I say any of that. ???
I said equal but different.
From the article you cited:

“Take for example the question of submission, “Wives submit to
your husbands”. The word in Greek is hupotasso. It is primarily a
military term “to rank under”. It isn’t about being a wimpy weak
woman. It has the feel of a Marine salute. It doesn’t imply
inferiority, but order. I have argued with feminists about this.
“Why,” they ask, “should women submit?” Consider, I reply. the other
possibilities: that the family would have no head. This would result
in confusion and crossed purposes, two people can’t solve things by a
vote. Give the children a vote, and the parents would have to lobby
the children. Without a clear head, we don’t have equality but
tyranny of the most stubborn, the most selfish, the one who won’t
give. “Well”, my feminist opponents retort, “Why should it be the
man? Aren’t some women more capable then their husbands?” To this I
agree, some women are more capable of leadership than their husbands.
Men are not given headship because they have merited it, it is their
assignment. We wouldn’t want a contest in every marriage to determine
who was a better head. Who would be the judge?”
 
40.png
niceatheist:
Or she can not marry, stay a virgin, and defy her apparent basic nature and purpose in the world.
Or she could take feminists advice - not marry, be promiscuous, pursue a professional career first instead of having kids first when her fertility is peaked, and then at age 40 realize she has a great resume but no family that she desperately wants and her fertility is gone and on top of that she can’t find a husband since all the good ones are either already married or are looking for women in their 20s.
In a free country, that’s her choice. Choices come with consequences. Is it your place to judge a woman who does this?
 
If women are truly equal as persons, that means they have personal autonomy. I’m not saying that gives them the right to walk out on their children, but it certainly means they have a voice in the family, and when they’re husband, for lack of a better word, is an idiot, then she made need to take control of the family for its own good. I’ve seen that with my own eyes.

I don’t want a wife who just does what she’s told. I want a partner who has free will and the confidence not to cooperate should I choose a foolish path, and has the confidence to say so.
Although the Church’s message to women is not a model of consistency, it is moving in the direction of real equality. From Amoris Laetitia:
There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation. This argument, however, is not valid, “it is false, untrue, a form of male chauvinism”. The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity. If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women.
 
Otherwise he is the final decision maker…
This is something I really love about forums. It’s not like an argument in a bar or at the bbq where comments dissapear into the ether never to be re-assesed. You actually have to sit and think about what you are going to say and then consciously and soberly write it down. And it’s there for all to see.

So here is a comment that would, in a normal conversation, drift off without much ado. But I can use the quote function and highlight a view, verbatim, that counters all reasonable people’s ideas of what constitutes the tension between male and female in a modern society. That being:

‘…he is the final decision maker…’

My wife laughed so much she nearly refused to make my dinner.
 
counters all reasonable people’s ideas of what constitutes the tension between male and female in a modern society
same modern society that normalizes infanticide? use that moral compass at your own peril
 
That is exactly what has happened. Apparently, liberated women have no brain until other women tell them what to do. Radical Feminism was never about solving problems. It was mainly about division and creating problems.
 
“modern society” is a media invention fueled by total strangers. “Don’t listen to mom and dad” Listen to us. It’s not working; in fact, it never worked.
 
40.png
niceatheist:
Or she can not marry, stay a virgin, and defy her apparent basic nature and purpose in the world.
Or she could take feminists advice - not marry, be promiscuous, pursue a professional career first instead of having kids first when her fertility is peaked, and then at age 40 realize she has a great resume but no family that she desperately wants and her fertility is gone and on top of that she can’t find a husband since all the good ones are either already married or are looking for women in their 20s.
You previously said that equality of opportunity is fine as you are concerned. But not equality of outcome. I asked you about explaining that.

I am asking again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top