Stop being so weird about women

[Xantippe]

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.

The problem is that not all women are exactly the same, just as all men aren’t exactly the same.

There are women who are never going to fit the mold you have in mind, no matter how good they might be. Take Temple Grandin, for example.

Here’s a short clip with the real life Temple Grandin

youtube.com/watch?v=1qPFAT4p8Lc

and here’s a clip from the end of the HBO Temple Grandin biopic:

youtube.com/watch?v=vwJc6HkP8fc

I have two daughters on the autism spectrum (age 14 and age 4) and that’s my world.

Both of them are very much girls in their particular ways–but just like Temple, they are not going to fit into that box. I’m quite sure of that with regard to my oldest, and pretty sure with regard to my youngest. And I was very much like that as a child myself.

I’m all for virtue. Virtue is great for everybody. But virtue doesn’t need to be gender-segregated, with pink virtues for the girls and blue virtues for the boys.

Being a practicing Catholic is tough enough without making up extra rules out of thin air. Let’s not do that.

 

[pensmama87]

One thing that has been useful for me to realize, is that there are differences between the sexes. If you do a study of men and women’s responses to a lot of different things, they’ll average in different places, that’s true. BUT, there will often be wider variation between individual men and women than there is between the average points.

I’m trying to be brief so I may not have great clarity, but hopefully I’m approaching it. Men and women are on average different, but two individual women or men may be even more different because of the wideness of a possible range of responses.

 

[Xantippe]

One thing that has been useful for me to realize, is that there are differences between the sexes. If you do a study of men and women’s responses to a lot of different things, they’ll average in different places, that’s true.** BUT, there will often be wider variation between individual men and women than there is between the average points.
**
I’m trying to be brief so I may not have great clarity, but hopefully I’m approaching it. Men and women are on average different, but two individual women or men may be even more different because of the wideness of a possible range of responses.

Right.

 

[illyxo]

One thing that has been useful for me to realize, is that there are differences between the sexes. If you do a study of men and women’s responses to a lot of different things, they’ll average in different places, that’s true. BUT, there will often be wider variation between individual men and women than there is between the average points.

I’m trying to be brief so I may not have great clarity, but hopefully I’m approaching it. Men and women are on average different, but two individual women or men may be even more different because of the wideness of a possible range of responses.

I’ve found this to be true, working with families and couples.

Some men are more ‘feminine’ e.g. gentle, meek whereas some women are more ‘masculine’ e.g. assertive, goal-oriented, direct.

There are some differences between the genders, such as men placing more emphasis on respect and women more on love, though both want respect and love. And when it comes to parenthood, the biological differences become more apparent.

Every couple’s dynamic is different I think.

 

[Rose71]

How about Isabella of Castille? She was an active head of state, totally committed to supporting her husband and being a good wife and mother, ensured her daughters were educated to a high standard, played an active role as a nurse on the battelfield, stood up against the slave trade by insisting the men and women her explorers had captured and brought back to Spain were freed and sent back home…

I suspect it would have taken a brave man or woman to be ‘openly wierd’ about her!!!

Joking aside, I’ve encountered some opinions about women from Catholics that I find ridiculous and even a bit creepy, but I don’t think they are ridiculous / creepy because there people are Catholics: I think it is because the people who hold them are quite narrow-minded and perhaps restricted by their own life experiences, intelligence and expectations.

It’s very easy to over simplify the teachings of the Church (especially if this ties in with your upbringing, culture or expectations of your own life) and break it down into something like this:

Eve was the one who listened to the serpent!
God sent us his son, not his daughter!
Women can’t be priests!
All women should focus on being good obedient wives!
It’s up to women to be modest and not lead men astray: men can’t help it if they get excited by racy outfits - ergo - they can’t help having naughty thoughts…

Anyone with common sense and intelligence knows there’s so much more to the Church;s teaching than this, but I think any faith that recognises the differences between men and women is going to attract a percentage of people with quite simplistic views, who grasp the absolute basics and then mould them to fit their narrow view of the world.

 

[chevalier]

I wonder how tender and amiable Joan of Arc was?

Apart from the rhetorical question of ‘does everybody have the same mission as Joan of Arc?’, I’m perfectly convinced that St. Jeanne was as tender and amiable as it gets. Had a lot to do with following a certain male Lord, who said: ‘Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart.’

One thing that has been useful for me to realize, is that there are differences between the sexes. If you do a study of men and women’s responses to a lot of different things, they’ll average in different places, that’s true. BUT, there will often be wider variation between individual men and women than there is between the average points.

Yup. It’s sad people don’t realize that in their stereotyping (unlike reasonable, non-absolute generalizations, which are useful).

 

[Lea101]

I think besides its simplistic view, some catholics tend to “hype” up women too much. I was watching a talk about the theology of the body and noticed there is this tendency to speak…way too highly of women. About how beautiful we are, how scared, how etc…this might seem like a strange thing to be complaining about, but the article in the OP did mention something like this.

They are not trying to be sexist, but it is just weird. Some women, or at least women like me, would just like to be talked about as normally as men. Others enjoy it, but it’s never really been my cup of tea.

The article sums it up well by saying “catholics don’t know how to talk about women”. Women cannot be leaders of their church or even their families, it left them quite confused about women and who they even are so it leads to half baked ideas about us.

I assume in 50 years time, it’ll be much better (when mem of today replace the current men).

 

[chevalier]

The article sums it up well by saying “catholics don’t know how to talk about women”?

But the author does?

I wouldn’t presume to know what is the correct way for others to talk about me or about any group I happen to belong to.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve found this to be true, working with families and couples.

Some men are more ‘feminine’ e.g. gentle, meek whereas some women are more ‘masculine’ e.g. assertive, goal-oriented, direct.

There are some differences between the genders, such as men placing more emphasis on respect and women more on love, though both want respect and love. And when it comes to parenthood, the biological differences become more apparent.

Every couple’s dynamic is different I think.

I have an auntie and uncle like that. They’ve been happily married 40+ years.

It’s not that auntie is “feminist”–that’s just her personality. And the uncle (who is a health care professional) is just innately like that.

 

[Xantippe]

Apart from the rhetorical question of ‘does everybody have the same mission as Joan of Arc?’, I’m perfectly convinced that St. Jeanne was as tender and amiable as it gets. Had a lot to do with following a certain male Lord, who said: ‘Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart.’

A lot of women have missions that require a lot of firmness and determination–like 100% of mothers.

I haven’t found out the details yet, but my 4-year-old daughter is (like big sister) also on the autism spectrum. Based on past experience (big sister was basically OK starting at 8), I’m looking at 3+ really tough years. I have every hope that it will get better after that, but while being tender and amiable are fine traits, they won’t be enough (and there will be a lot of times when they need to be back-burnered).

 

[Xantippe]

If I recall correctly, Simcha Fisher (the author of the article) has 10 children, so she has paid her dues.

 

[chevalier]

A lot of women have missions that require a lot of firmness and determination–like 100% of mothers.

I’m sure most of them are tender and amiable, especially mothers to their children. Hopefully so are the childrens’ fathers.

I haven’t found out the details yet, but my 4-year-old daughter is (like big sister) also on the autism spectrum. Based on past experience (big sister was basically OK starting at 8), I’m looking at 3+ really tough years. I have every hope that it will get better after that, but while being tender and amiable are fine traits, they won’t be enough (and there will be a lot of times when they need to be back-burnered).

I’m rather sure you are and will be tender and amiable throughout, even when some tough love is called for.

It is an important skill for any person to learn to be able to be firm while tender and tender while firm as the situation requires.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m sure most of them are tender and amiable, especially mothers to their children. Hopefully so are the childrens’ fathers.

I’m rather sure you are and will be tender and amiable throughout, even when some tough love is called for.

It is an important skill for any person to learn to be able to be firm while tender and tender while firm as the situation requires.

Yes, but a lot of the people who come up with lists of “feminine” qualities tend to not be clear on the fact that both sets of qualities are going to come into play for effective parenting. A mother who was only tender and amiable would wind up being bullied by small children (in fact, hang around with mothers of small children long enough and you will see moms getting bossed around by tiny tots–that has been me from time to time). If even just motherhood itself requires more than those “feminine” virtues, than I think we have to question the adequacy of the concept. (And in fact, it’s often the people who want women to be most “feminine” that are most eager to load them down with impossible burdens–have a large family, keep an immaculate home, live on a tiny budget, 100% home cooking, homeschool, never need any help, etc.)

It’s kind of the whole point of the discussion–that both the “feminine” and the “masculine” list is inadequate by itself, and that people of both sexes need ALL of the virtues, not just 50%.

 

[chevalier]

It’s kind of the whole point of the discussion–that both the “feminine” and the “masculine” list is inadequate by itself, and that people of both sexes need ALL of the virtues, not just 50%.

It’s my point as well, which is why I’m stressing the irrelevance of one’s sex throughout most of these things. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but I’m getting a bad vibe from the article, as it seems to propose some sort of special rule, and the opening reference to female ordination leaves me incurably distrustful, even where I could agree with most of the contents.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s my point as well, which is why I’m stressing the irrelevance of one’s sex throughout most of these things. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but I’m getting a bad vibe from the article, as it seems to propose some sort of special rule, and the opening reference to female ordination leaves me incurably distrustful, even where I could agree with most of the contents.

The mention of female ordination doesn’t really fit with the rest of the piece. I suspect it’s what they call a “news hook”–an attempt to connect a think piece to current events. You could slice that part off and it would work perfectly well. If that worries you, here’s a quote from later in the piece:

"So what would help? What should the Church do?

“Allow women priests? Nah. That can’t and won’t and shouldn’t happen.”

I don’t really see why you think the article is proposing “some sort of special rule”–if anything it’s the opposite, asking for women to be treated as people and as individuals, not some sort of exotic or alien quasi-human species (like Klingons or Vulcans or elves or whatever).

"And three, remind them of what I learned when I was a young wife grappling with St Paul: women are people.

“They are individuals who can legitimately be distinct from each other without spoiling some vast, eternal plan.”

I think a lot of people (including people on CAF) have trouble with that one.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It’s my point as well, which is why I’m stressing the irrelevance of one’s sex throughout most of these things. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but I’m getting a bad vibe from the article, as it seems to propose some sort of special rule, and the opening reference to female ordination leaves me incurably distrustful, even where I could agree with most of the contents.

Since the author immediately shoots down the idea of women’s ordination, I wasn’t too concerned about that. I was somewhat disappointed at her slam against JPII, it seemed somewhat gratuitous and her point could have been phrased in a more charitable way, but this seems to be the blogger’s style now.

I think that it is one thing to make generalizations about sexes, everyone does and I don’t think that by itself is problematic. For example, men have, in general, more muscle strength than women. But that doesn’t mean female pro athletes who are stronger than SOME men (though I realize still weaker than most male athletes) don’t exist, or that women should not be involved in athletic competition because it is somehow “unfeminine” to do so – and I know the Church doesn’t actually teach that. But I think some individuals who identify as Catholic do.

Similarly, even if we state that, for example, men are more likely to be X, doesn’t automatically make it “unnatural” for a women to be X, too.

I also see this with sexual sin. I know that theoretically men and women are equally culpable but there does seem to be this idea floating around that a man who commits such sin is merely “responding to his God-given urges” while a woman is going against the ideal female nature if she does so, so she is guilty not only of sexual sin but of “unnatural” sexual sin. Almost like the idea that someone who gives into SSA is worse than someone who gives into OSA outside marriage.

 

[pensmama87]

Since the author immediately shoots down the idea of women’s ordination, I wasn’t too concerned about that. I was somewhat disappointed at her slam against JPII, it seemed somewhat gratuitous and her point could have been phrased in a more charitable way, but this seems to be the blogger’s style now.

Oh, gimme a break.

JPII was a brilliant theologian, and I have a deep admiration for him (as does the author), but yes, his writing is frequently “as clear as mud.” And it’s not wrong for her to point that out, even if the theology is sound.

This sort of muddling is problematic, and that’s the point of the article. It’s not a “slam” to mention it.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh, gimme a break.

JPII was a brilliant theologian, and I have a deep admiration for him (as does the author), but yes, his writing is frequently “as clear as mud.” And it’s not wrong for her to point that out, even if the theology is sound.

This sort of muddling is problematic, and that’s the point of the article. It’s not a “slam” to mention it.

Yeah, I do have to agree with Simcha here.

JPII was a very influential and original philosopher (some of my husband’s work is inspired by him), but he’s definitely not very accessible to the lay reader. You’ll notice that JPII’s ideas on sexuality have largely reached the public through “translators” like Christopher West–people usually aren’t reading JPII himself–and there’s a reason for that.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

The vile women-hating-men war is the result of a fallen world. It was never meant to be this way. Man was created first, yet it was the first thing God saw about His creation that wasn’t good. “It is not good for the Man to be alone, so I will make a helper fit for him.” And so He drew from Man’s rib and fashioned the Woman. Adam now had Eve. The Man now had the Woman. Together, they were complete. Man was now a husband, and Woman was a wife, together they were alongside of each other. Eve was NOT Adam’s slave. God Himself designed her as Adam’s “helper.”
They walked with God, alone with Him, the land, the animals, all of His beautiful creation, until ugly sin ruined it all.
No. Woman was never predestined to be Man’s “slave.” She was his needed other half.