Staying free from feminist lies

  • Thread starter Thread starter unitive_mystic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lea101 said:
That’s inaccurate. Some fundamentalist protestants would agree with you, but we are Catholics and the reason why men has more authority in certain areas is not because they are allegedly smarter. You can try to bring up Aquinas, but even what he said was refuted.
Click to expand...
I have not been to one extreme or the other about this issue. Yet, I notice that you do acknowledge man has more authority in certain areas. This is also what I believe.

It’s the reason that I don’t strictly believe even equality of sexes. If Jesus believed in equality of sexes, we would see female Apostles, Bishops, and Presbyters.

I do agree that a husband and wife have a mutually equal duty and privilege to love one another. The husband should definitely not Lord his headship over his wife, just as our pastors should definitely not Lord their position over the laity. Still, the Pastor has authority which we do not.
 
I acknowledge that in Catholicism, husbands and clergy are supposed to have authority (hence certain). For example I’m sure we can agree you, my brother or some random guy don’t have more authority than me. However it’s something that I don’t agree with on a personal level (in marriage that is), but I don’t try to interpret scripture based on my beliefs.

That being said, the Church did acknowledge that Ephesians 5 will look different in different marriages so the whole ‘let husband make the final decision in everything’ doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the only way God wants. Also the type of authority a father/mother, a priest and a husband has is different. That’s pretty obvious but given the posts we have here I think it’s necessary to say this.

I do believe in equality for obvious reasons. Equal opportunity is necessary in general. I’m not talking about female clergy, I’m talking about other positions in the Church and in society. This obviously also extends to other people (people of different races, disability, etc). The Church obviously agrees with this, which is why they welcome women in the public sphere, women who work etc as well as acknowledged that women have faced sexism which is now condemned.

In other words, it’s possible to support and push of equality of gender in general and yet still acknowledge the Church’s position on female clergy.
rcwitness said:
If Jesus believed in equality of sexes, we would see female Apostles, Bishops, and Presbyters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
That being said, the Church did acknowledge that Ephesians 5 will look different in different marriages so the whole 'let husband make the final decision in everything’ doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the only way God wants. Also the type of authority a father/mother, a priest and a husband has is different. That’s pretty obvious but given the posts we have here I think it’s necessary to say this.
Click to expand...
Either the man has authority in decisions, or he doesn’t. Whether he wishes to delicate some decisions to his wife, as he should, is up to him.

I agree it would be “Lording” his authority to make his wife ask permission for everything. Yet, the wife should allow him to make the final decision for important matters. Again, whether she convinces him on some or even all decisions doesn’t matter. She may have a more sound mind for these things.
 
Edmundus1581 said:
The best single treatment of feminism I’ve seen from a Catholic perspective I’ve seen is this, from EWTN by Dale O’Leary, a woman Catholic author.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FEMINISM.TXT

She knows the historic background of feminism and its inner workings.

On the subject of headship in marriage, she writes:
Code: 
 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?
Click to expand...
I think that here is the answer to feminism. It is for men to reject all gender roles imposed by society, as women have already done. We don’'t financially support our ex-es and children any more than the minimum the law can enforce. We ignore marriage vows. We never listen to women “victims” in the same way they never listen to male victims - we just don’t care (for rape or injury there are already laws and harsh punishments provided over centuries). We argue endlessly until we win, one way or another, and then forget what we have said. We look after #1, as women are already doing and are calling “equality”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
I agree it would be “Lording” his authority to make his wife ask permission for everything
Click to expand...
This is what I mean. Believe it or not, I’ve seen people saying that you need to ask your husband permission to cut your hair, or try on a new lipstick. As far as I’m concerned, the Church would regard this as nonsense as this would be treating the wife as a minor with little rights (according to Pius or a notable Catholic pope, I believe). I would ask for an opinion, but I wouldn’t be sinning if I decided to wear my hair longer/shorter than he wants it to be.

I think the important question Christians (and Muslims…and Jews…whoever that does this stuff) what needs to be his decision in the first place? Most Catholics tend to focus on major decisions regarding spiritual and family life, but would agree it’s something that needs to be discussed. An actual discussion rather than an illusion of discussion though, which I see many people get confused over.
Edmundus1581 said:
It is for men to just walk away from all obligations imposed by traditional society, as women have already done. We don’'t support our children any more than the minimum the law can enforce on us. We ignore marriage vows…
Click to expand...
We can’t pretend as if this wasn’t happening before feminism. Men weren’t that great before the movement happened. It wasn’t as if women were the awful bad guys that ruined your lives because they got bored at home. All sorts of immorality against spouses and families were happening, it’s just that now they are blaming it on different things instead of taking personal responsibility. I’m curious since I feel like I have remembered our conversation about India (if that was you), do you acknowledge that there’s sexism against women in the first place? And that in some countries and cultures than others, it is a bigger problem than your idea of sexism against men? You don’t have to answer it here, because this thread ran its course (which I suspect may be the intent) but I am just curious about it.
 
I agree.

Real discussion is healthy. Just like the Bishop of Rome should really listen to his fellow Bishops.
 
The family is regarded as the Domestic Church. If we remove the order of authority, we disfigure the family functionality.

A husband who regularly defers decisions to his wife may be avoiding his own responsibility.

A husband has more responsibility, which is not necessarily something to be desired! We will be judged as one who is more responsible!
 
Last edited:
That is so contrary to my own lived experience that it’s hard to imagine. My ex paid no alimony – nor did anyone else in my county. It’s simply never ordered. His child support covered school lunches. Until I remarried, I was definitely the person supporting our children, on my own.
 
JulianN said:
That is so contrary to my own lived experience that it’s hard to imagine. My ex paid no alimony – nor did anyone else in my county. It’s simply never ordered. His child support covered school lunches. Until I remarried, I was definitely the person supporting our children, on my own.
Click to expand...
Thankyou!

Which country are you talking about?

In Australia, the US, the UK, etc. it is common for the woman to both leave on her own choice, even fadultery, and then claim custody of the children. If it were to go to court she will mostly win, except in the most egregious and provable cases of abuse. This is exactly what my lawyer advised my when I asked him about applying for custody of our children. I knew that my wife had only left for selfish reasons (an affair) and had been a terrible mother, but also knew that by court standards my case was flimsy.

With the recent hysteria about “domestic violence” in these countries women are encouraged by their lawyers to claim that their husband is a “abuser” to assist their claims for custody, with all the financial benefits this brings.

# Without restraint’: the abuse of domestic violence orders
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
Yes. My point is that the Church would not say that today—we are very clear in our teaching that slavery is immoral. And a slave is well within his or her rights to escape, not obey. Biblical commentaries often speak of how the Church interacts with the society it finds, such as the first century.
Click to expand...
Are you implying the Apostle did not know slavery was immoral?
 
This situation with slaves is I think roughly parallel to the situation of polygamy today in Africa and the Church.

The institution is entrenched and persuading a man with several wives to get rid of his wives aside from the first wife would lead to a lot of women and children without support, so a compromise was reached. The man had to live with his wives as brother and sister and at the same time support them and the children.

The situation with slaves is the same. If they are all let free where will they get support? It’s not like they can go to the local unemployment office and look for other jobs. The compromise was to let the slaves stay as they are and the treatment would not be of abuse but more like employers and employees.
 
The U.S. And in my case, the “hysteria” about domestic violence (not sure why you had domestic violence and abuser in quotes in your post) wasn’t so hysterical. Nor is it in the case of many women who are abused. I’m not saying there are never false charges, but that’s not as common as the truthful ones.
 
JulianN said:
The U.S. And in my case, the “hysteria” about domestic violence (not sure why you had domestic violence and abuser in quotes in your post) wasn’t so hysterical. Nor is it in the case of many women who are abused. I’m not saying there are never false charges, but that’s not as common as the truthful ones.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for your answer about the country - that helps.
 
Last edited:
So whether it’s immoral or not is not the point. The point was for slaves to submit to masters, and masters to treat their slaves with respect.
 
JulianN said:
We use the verse right before the one you’re quoting—and actually, that statement about second marriages isn’t statistically accurate.
Click to expand...
You are right, in general. But I’d be curious about Christian second marriages.
 
Maybe where slavery is legal. It’s not the point. St Paul was inspired to say what he said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top