Stop being so weird about women

[LightBound]

catholicweekly.com.au/simcha-fisher-catholics-stop-being-so-weird-about-women/

“It’s a little too easy for Catholic misogynists to find ammunition among the saints and Church Fathers who took the specific approach, defining a women’s worth according to how docile, tender, or amiable she is, how many children she bears, how many men she leads to perdition, or how many inches of clavicle she reveals.”

I’ve read these sentiments on CAF in the past couple of weeks.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Reposting as apparently there was an issue with the first version of this topic:

Well, I certainly have myself but I think most of the frankly misogynistic posters aren’t even claiming that what they are stating is Catholic teaching, most are secular red pill/MRA types.

I’ve also noticed that the people who are very into traditional gender roles also assume all MEN fit into some standard mold. This is also quite limiting.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Reposted from the other defunct thread:

That was an interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

I’ve always had some sort of issue about how the Church views women. A couple years ago I went to a Catholic woman’s conference and by the time I left I just wanted to shout to everyone I met that “I am more than my uterus.”

Add to the fact that my husband does not want me to obey him. He wants a life partner, not a second class citizen or a child-wife to blindly obey his dictates for fear of “punishment”.

Peace,
B

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Repost from the defunct thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamhovey1988 View Post
No Catholic on Earth believes that you are just a uterus and Church teaching is not that. I think that if Catholics hated women then we wouldn’t hold the Virgin Mary in high esteem would we?/Quote

You are comparing two different things. It is one thing to hold a strong courageous woman such as the BVM in high esteem and quite another to spend a weekend hearing about how one’s worth as a woman is tied to how many children, biological or spiritual, one has.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

You are comparing two different things. It is one thing to hold a strong courageous woman such as the BVM in high esteem and quite another to spend a weekend hearing about how one’s worth as a woman is tied to how many children, biological or spiritual, one has.

Also, the BVM is honored mostly for her role as the Mother of Jesus, and Marian spiritual exercises usually involve meditating on Mary as an adoptive Mother to everyone.

I suspect that much of the “weirdness” about women in Catholic (and also many non-Catholic) Christians does come out of an admirable desire to honor the role of mothers, as a counter-cultural attempt to counter secular tendencies to DEvalue the role of mothers, suggest one can easily farm out such work to a lowly paid daycare worker, etc.

But it is true that not all women will become mothers, or even marry. And not all such women are called to become a nun or sister, either.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Also, the BVM is honored mostly for her role as the Mother of Jesus, and Marian spiritual exercises usually involve meditating on Mary as an adoptive Mother to everyone.

I suspect that much of the “weirdness” about women in Catholic (and also many non-Catholic) Christians does come out of an admirable desire to honor the role of mothers, as a counter-cultural attempt to counter secular tendencies to DEvalue the role of mothers, suggest one can easily farm out such work to a lowly paid daycare worker, etc.

But it is true that not all women will become mothers, or even marry. And not all such women are called to become a nun or sister, either.

In the modern view I agree with your assessment. Historically, the Church has always had an odd view on a woman’s place. It harkens back to the patriarchal society prevalent at the time Jesus was here on earth and the centuries after.

One example is Mary Magdalene. Pope St. Gregory vilified her officially and the church has to turn that around in the mid-20th century. (And no, I do not want to debate MM’s role in Jesus’s life. I just want to use this one particular weirdness against one particular woman as an example.)

Peace,
B

 

[ToeInTheWater]

In the modern view I agree with your assessment. Historically, the Church has always had an odd view on a woman’s place. It harkens back to the patriarchal society prevalent at the time Jesus was here on earth and the centuries after.

One example is Mary Magdalene. Pope St. Gregory vilified her officially and the church has to turn that around in the mid-20th century. (And no, I do not want to debate MM’s role in Jesus’s life. I just want to use this one particular weirdness against one particular woman as an example.)

Peace,
B

I actually don’t see what Pope Gregory did as “vilifying” Mary Magdalene, though it is certainly an example of how just because a man is (1) a Pope and (2) a Saint does NOT mean that every comment out of his mouth, or quill, is Infallible Church Teaching. But AFAIK although she was inaccurately portrayed as a repentant prostitute, she was still portrayed as a devout follower of Jesus after her conversion.

It is unfortunate that the prostitute theory became “official Church teaching” for a while and her name was used to support some questionable practices such as the Magdalene Laundries. As well as play into the “virgin vs. whore” dichotomy, that women are either innocent angels or wicked temptresses when it comes to sex.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

I actually don’t see what Pope Gregory did as “vilifying” Mary Magdalene, though it is certainly an example of how just because a man is (1) a Pope and (2) a Saint does NOT mean that every comment out of his mouth, or quill, is Infallible Church Teaching. But AFAIK although she was inaccurately portrayed as a repentant prostitute, she was still portrayed as a devout follower of Jesus after her conversion.

It is unfortunate that the prostitute theory became “official Church teaching” for a while and her name was used to support some questionable practices such as the Magdalene Laundries. As well as play into the “virgin vs. whore” dichotomy, that women are either innocent angels or wicked temptresses when it comes to sex.

Agreed.

 

[dmar198]

catholicweekly.com.au/simcha-fisher-catholics-stop-being-so-weird-about-women/

“It’s a little too easy for Catholic misogynists to find ammunition among the saints and Church Fathers who took the specific approach, defining a women’s worth according to how docile, tender, or amiable she is, how many children she bears, how many men she leads to perdition, or how many inches of clavicle she reveals.”

I’ve read these sentiments on CAF in the past couple of weeks.

I read half the article and didn’t find anything bad, the author seems to have a pretty good head on her shoulders. I do wish the last 15 sentences of her post weren’t divided into a paragraph each. Some consolidation of the whitespace would be great.

Regarding the quote about misogynists finding “ammunition” among the Saints and Church Fathers, um…in a body of work that large, anybody can probably find ammunition for anything. All you’ve gotta do is take things out of context. I have done my best to provide ammunition for Catholic feminists in the same body of work – hopefully I haven’t taken anything out of context!

Catholic History & Women’s Equality: A Timeline
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/catholic-history-womens-equality.html

Let me know what you think.

 

[Xantippe]

Reposting as apparently there was an issue with the first version of this topic:

Well, I certainly have myself but I think most of the frankly misogynistic posters aren’t even claiming that what they are stating is Catholic teaching, most are secular red pill/MRA types.

**I’ve also noticed that the people who are very into traditional gender roles also assume all MEN fit into some standard mold. **This is also quite limiting.

Yeah–like we’re all actually married to the same guy and in the same marriage.

That was very noticeable in that article in the other thread about what men really want.

 

[twf]

I actually don’t see what Pope Gregory did as “vilifying” Mary Magdalene, though it is certainly an example of how just because a man is (1) a Pope and (2) a Saint does NOT mean that every comment out of his mouth, or quill, is Infallible Church Teaching. But AFAIK although she was inaccurately portrayed as a repentant prostitute, she was still portrayed as a devout follower of Jesus after her conversion.

It is unfortunate that the prostitute theory became “official Church teaching” for a while and her name was used to support some questionable practices such as the Magdalene Laundries. As well as play into the “virgin vs. whore” dichotomy, that women are either innocent angels or wicked temptresses when it comes to sex.

Is “vilified” the right word? We’re talking about her sinful past, whether it was fabricated or not…she has always been venerated as a saint.
That being said, I am grateful that Pope Francis recently raised her memorial to the rank of a full feast. The apostles get full feasts…and the Fathers honored St. Mary Magdalene as the “Apostle to the Apostles” given that it was to her that the Lord first appeared…

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Yeah–like we’re all actually married to the same guy and in the same marriage.

That was very noticeable in that article in the other thread about what men really want.

Yes, and men who are “weird about women” seem to assume all husbands are married to the same wife, and all engaged guys are engaged to the same fiancee, that all guys who are dating are dating the same girlfriend, etc.

I cringe whenever people feel justified in making broad sweeping generalizations about a large demographic, but I realize this is probably just a human failing. What gets me is when people keep acting as if a particular member of demographic X HAS to fit that generalization, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

It’s become rather un-PC to do that for racial demographics, but not as much for gender demographics, and apparently it’s considered S.O.P. to do so for generational demographics; hence the bad reputation of Millenials and how, instead of questioning the generalizations, people are just trying to avoid the label by claiming they’re too old, or too young, for it to apply.

 

[Lea101]

I do agree with the article. As a female catholic, sometimes I feel like stuff the Church has said sounds like little participation trophies they give out. I’m generally a bitter person, though…but man, it’s pretty annoying when they try to speak too highly about women because it always sounds weird. (“Woman are scared…feminine genius…walking tabernacle…chief place in love”). I also really haate the broad generalisations coming from christians in general. I get that there are women who love the stereotypical idea of femininity and that they are allowed to. But when they act like God intends for all women to be like that, and that feminism is the reason why “women are wearing pant suits and trying to be like men”/etc…gosh that is infuriating and suffocating.

And the fact that Mary is highly respected is not a “HA! We are not sexist!” reason. One can respect a woman and still have flawed perceptions about the female population. And like the other poster said, she is respected because she is the Mother of God. Sinless, pure, perfect. You wouldn’t buy a radical feminist’s excuse that she respects men because she loves her dad, or a white supremacist that he respects POC because he prays to Jesus, so why expect others to do the same with the Church and Mary? It’s just not proof of anything. It’s a very shallow answer that can easily blow up in your face if you say it to the ‘wrong’ person.

Anyway, I don’t think the Church hates women. I just think it was left behind with teachings they are trying their best to make sense of (eg no to women being priests, wives submitting) + the culture just leads to weird…views they come up with.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Anyway, I don’t think the Church hates women. I just think it was left behind with teachings they are trying their best to make sense of (eg no to women being priests, wives submitting) + the culture just leads to weird…views they come up with.

I agree with this paragraph Lea wrote. The “rules” for women came about at a time in humanity’s history when women were thought of as chattle more often than not.

Additionally, the people still making the rules for women (within the church) are men. Let’s face it, they have a slightly different POV regarding the world. It isn’t such a bad thing in and of itself. However, they make the rules and they may not realize how (at times) how off the wall and misogynistic they actually sound perhaps without meaning to. And the youngest of them today was raised in the 50s and 60s so there is a huge disconnect between their experience and the experience of women today.

Peace,
B

 

[chevalier]

"It’s a little too easy for Catholic misogynists to find ammunition among the saints and Church Fathers who took the specific approach, defining a women’s worth according to how docile, tender, or amiable she is, how many children she bears,

And what’s wrong with considering it better for a person to be tender or amiable than not?

how many men she leads to perdition,

Any human being has an obligation to not lead others to sin. Intentionally inducing others to mortal sin is mortal for the inducer, and doing so through negligence is not necessarily sinless or venial either. Nobody’s exempt just because of his or her sex, or just because the sin in question happens to be sexual in nature as opposed to involving life, health or property or something else.

or how many inches of clavicle she reveals.

Same as above. There’s nothing wrong with clavicles, of any sex, but everything’s wrong with intentional titillation of the opposite sex (or the same sex, for that matter).

 

[LightBound]

And what’s wrong with considering it better for a person to be tender or amiable than not?

Any human being has an obligation to not lead others to sin. Intentionally inducing others to mortal sin is mortal for the inducer, and doing so through negligence is not necessarily sinless or venial either. Nobody’s exempt just because of his or her sex, or just because the sin in question happens to be sexual in nature as opposed to involving life, health or property or something else.

Same as above. There’s nothing wrong with clavicles, of any sex, but everything’s wrong with intentional titillation of the opposite sex (or the same sex, for that matter).

There is nothing wrong with considering it better for a person (male or female) to be tender or amiable, or to be against leading one to sinful inclinations. What I quoted from her article specifically said “*****defining a women’s worth according to…*”. That’s what I was pointing out and you’ve been on these forums long enough to know exactly what kind of posts I’m talking about.

 

[SusanneT]

catholicweekly.com.au/simcha-fisher-catholics-stop-being-so-weird-about-women/

“It’s a little too easy for Catholic misogynists to find ammunition among the saints and Church Fathers who took the specific approach, defining a women’s worth according to how docile, tender, or amiable she is, how many children she bears, how many men she leads to perdition, or how many inches of clavicle she reveals.”

I’ve read these sentiments on CAF in the past couple of weeks.

I’m sorry I don’t think that just because traditional Catholicism teaches that men and women are different and have different roles and qualities given by God and expected of them, which does no match feminist aspirations that it is misogynistic. Many would argue the opposite.

 

[chevalier]

There is nothing wrong with considering it better for a person (male or female) to be tender or amiable, or to be against leading one to sinful inclinations. What I quoted from her article specifically said “defining a women’s worth according to…”. That’s what I was pointing out and you’ve been on these forums long enough to know exactly what kind of posts I’m talking about.

I’ve also been around long enough to know that the very first sentence is quite material to the entire thing:

The Pope just reaffirmed that women will never be Catholic priests.

Tells me a lot already, and the rest does not fail to deliver.

I’m not just talking about the following, which is already so militant that I wonder why we’re even seriously considering it:

Here’s the vague approach, epitomised by John Paul II, who had a special charism for expressing important and profound truths in a way that sounds nearly meaningless

I’m also talking about how the parts I quoted in my last post appeared to be progressivist agenda rather than legitimate Catholic complaints (for which I don’t deny there are some grounds).

As regards our worth, apart from, by the totally unmerited grace of God having been created in His image and subsequently redeemed, which no human work can even begin to match, it’s pretty much defined by sin or merit indeed. So no wonder that virtues and vices, and sins, including sins committed in the mind, including sins that relate to sexuality, affect our ‘worth’. Alas, we don’t get the freedom to do as we please and be unaffected by the consequences. Male or female, who cares on that level on which these things reside.

I’m sorry I don’t think that just because traditional Catholicism teaches that men and women are different and have different roles and qualities given by God and expected of them, which does no match feminist aspirations that it is misogynistic. Many would argue the opposite.

There is a lot of lamentable misogyny among Church Fathers and subsequent saints (down to woman as defective man, which is outright awful and contradicts the scriptural account of creation), and subsequent theologians (not to mention contemporary believers), but not matching feminist agendas is not part of it. It’s important to separate the two. This is not to say that critics with progressivist leanings can’t make a valid point (because they can), but the term ‘misogyny’ should still not be used in the same way as ‘homophobia’ to intimidate or bludgeon others into compliance with something they are not persuaded of the merits of on an intellectual or emotional level.

 

[Lea101]

I’m sorry I don’t think that just because traditional Catholicism teaches that men and women are different and have different roles and qualities given by God and expected of them, which does no match feminist aspirations that it is misogynistic. Many would argue the opposite.

Teaching that men and woman are different is fine. But the issue here is not that and you know it. The issue is that they are trying to fit men and women in different little boxes based on stereotypes. The church just doesn’t know much about women (I wonder why )

 

[Xantippe]

And what’s wrong with considering it better for a person to be tender or amiable than not?

I wonder how tender and amiable Joan of Arc was?