J
Just_Lurking
Guest
It was more of an opinion poll than an actual vote. The outcome had no effect on any laws or proposed law or any concrete result.
- Status
C
Crash001
Guest
There is nothing more powerful and beautiful than a strong Catholic woman and wife in today’s culture. They are independent thinking, love the faith, and make positive things happen for other woman and children in society.
M
moon1234
Guest
Most people don’t know or forget that when this country was founded only LANDOWNERS could vote. Either Men OR Woman, but you had to be a landowner! The reason? Because it was thought that those who did not own land did not have a stake in this country or in the potential taxes that could be levied on landowners.
It was thought to be unfair for someone who did NOT own land to vote on laws or potential taxes that would not affect them. This is why property was so cheap. The newly formed government wanted people to own land.
The fact that women could not vote was mostly a protestant invention, not a Catholic one. Those women who cry foul now should do well to remember that Catholics were a very small minority in the USA until the late 19th century.
Presumeably many couples lived their vows that they took. They discussed the issues at hand and decided on who would vote. For some women they may not have cared who to vote for and relied on their husbands to worry about such things. For others the couple discussed who should be voted for and arrived at a consensus.
The fact that only 4% of women wanted sufferage shows that less than 10% of women we clamoring for their own independant vote. Was this wrong? Were women oppressed? I put forth no.
Womens sufferage most likely had its strongest backing from political parties more than the populace at large. Women were a vast untapped political landscape. If a political party could sway more women to their side, they stood a much larger change of taking control of government. THAT, I believe, is the true reason for the push for women’s sufferage.
History books today are all tainted with revisionist history that seeks to paint history using the brush of todays political landscape. If you actually READ the writings from the people who lived in that time you will find that man History books today outright lie, don’t tell the whole story or pander to a certain vision of history that is not entirely accurate.
It was thought to be unfair for someone who did NOT own land to vote on laws or potential taxes that would not affect them. This is why property was so cheap. The newly formed government wanted people to own land.
The fact that women could not vote was mostly a protestant invention, not a Catholic one. Those women who cry foul now should do well to remember that Catholics were a very small minority in the USA until the late 19th century.
Presumeably many couples lived their vows that they took. They discussed the issues at hand and decided on who would vote. For some women they may not have cared who to vote for and relied on their husbands to worry about such things. For others the couple discussed who should be voted for and arrived at a consensus.
The fact that only 4% of women wanted sufferage shows that less than 10% of women we clamoring for their own independant vote. Was this wrong? Were women oppressed? I put forth no.
Womens sufferage most likely had its strongest backing from political parties more than the populace at large. Women were a vast untapped political landscape. If a political party could sway more women to their side, they stood a much larger change of taking control of government. THAT, I believe, is the true reason for the push for women’s sufferage.
History books today are all tainted with revisionist history that seeks to paint history using the brush of todays political landscape. If you actually READ the writings from the people who lived in that time you will find that man History books today outright lie, don’t tell the whole story or pander to a certain vision of history that is not entirely accurate.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
“Like”
W
white_sheep
Guest
I suppose I am getting a little off topic on this one, but the way that I have understood the concept of landowners being the only ones to vote is a bit different.
Back then landowners were the ones who employed people. They were farmers and businessmen. We were an agrarian society. It seems to me that this was done with an attempt to make it so that the businessmen of society would be the ones electing the leaders and keeping the government in check. It was to be a government run by private enterprise, in essence. Today we have the people electing the leaders, it is a major difference and one which I believe was furthered along by women’s suffrage to an extent, though most of the damage was already done.
F
FatherOfTwelve
Guest
OK folks, I could barley read through all this voting stuff. I read through two pages then started to jump. Finally to the last. Anyway, how about a little twist on the subject. I find it very odd that women today do not wear a veil at Mass anymore. My wife and girls do, and a few other ladies, wife and daughters 6 + 2 = 8 say 9 to be generous. 9 out of about 200 women. Why…it’s clearly been a tradition (I would almost use a “T”), it’s commanded by the Lord in scripture, and our Magesterium (Bishops) still obey this command. All three agree. Tradition, Scripture and Magesterium. But our ladies most will not comply.
Anyone have thoughts on why? Or the reason behind maybe the lack of knowlege that maybe they should be. Or down right refusal.
Let the comments flow forth!!!
Anyone have thoughts on why? Or the reason behind maybe the lack of knowlege that maybe they should be. Or down right refusal.
Let the comments flow forth!!!
J
JaneGrey
Guest
With respect, your post leaves out all the stay at home dads out there as well those fathers who are the primary or equal caregivers of their children. They do a fantastic job.
Yes there is nothing wrong with a woman staying home and taking care of her children. Nothing to be ashamed of and for the record I do not think the Church, at least compared with other similar institutions, has really oppressed women.
I do take issue with labeling something ‘women’s’ or ‘men’s’ work. If a man wants to stay home and tend to his house and children, let me do it and he should not be ridiculed. If the wife finds it more practical and fulfilling to work outside the home, she should be not chastised either.
Further, the priesthood is certainly not for all men, and though im sure many would disagree with me, motherhood not for all women.
God bless
R
Rence
Guest
What does that mean anyway? When my contact lens nonchalantly bonked off the sink and rolled down the drain as I watched in a state of disbelief, it wasn’t any of the men who saved my sight. My 98lb grandmother was the one who took apart the elbow under the sink and found my contact lens
She’s the one who stripped wood, rigged broken things that couldn’t be repaired due to lack of money, and fixed things that could while my grandfather (God love him) sat in a LazyBoy laughing heartily (and quite contagiously) at the Three Stooges…these are my memories of my grandparents 
I see nothing wrong with a man being home with the kids while the wife works outside the home, if that’s the situation that works best for them. I’ll tell you, after the long haul it took to earn my degree, I’m not just staying home…though I would consider working part time.
And you know what? as to staying home while I’m at it, I have no unearthly clue how some people (whether it’s mom or dad) can complain about being bored at home (that’s almost all I hear IRL) because if they’re actually holding down the fort like they’re supposed to, their work should still not be done at the end of the day. Staying home and taking care of the house and kids is work. And I am in awe of the homeschoolers who are actually doing homeschooling as well. It’s work. Either way, it’s invaluable no matter which spouse is doing it.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
The Duties of Married People
The more easily to preserve the holy state (of marriage) from dissensions, the duties of husband and wife as inculcated by St. Paul and by the Prince of the Apostles must be explained.
Duties Of A Husband
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.
Duties Of A Wife
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
R
Rence
Guest
My priest said it’s perfectly fine for a woman to work outside the home, and while it should be agreed upon by both parties, and definitely discussed before they get married, they don’t need their husband’s express permission to do so.
But if you want to live as your husband’s subordinate, that’s fine
Everyone has to do what’s best for them. Most women today acknowledge that being married is a shared partnership, particularly when most men can’t afford to “keep their wives at home”. Most women contribute to the household by working outside the home as well. I want a husband, not a father I want to be a wife, not a daughter If I wanted to be someone’s property, I’d move to Iraq and marry a Muslim.
But if you want to live as your husband’s subordinate, that’s fine
Everyone has to do what’s best for them. Most women today acknowledge that being married is a shared partnership, particularly when most men can’t afford to “keep their wives at home”. Most women contribute to the household by working outside the home as well. I want a husband, not a father I want to be a wife, not a daughter If I wanted to be someone’s property, I’d move to Iraq and marry a Muslim.
R
Rence
Guest
A downright refusal…there is no law that requires women to cover their head at Mass or anywhere else. But I think it’s great that women who do choose to wear the veil/manta/whatever can feel free to do so. I find it repulsive when people make fun of, or otherwise harass, a woman who chooses to cover their head. It’s up to them. And they should enjoy the same rights as I do when making decisions.OK folks, I could barley read through all this voting stuff. I read through two pages then started to jump. Finally to the last. Anyway, how about a little twist on the subject. I find it very odd that women today do not wear a veil at Mass anymore. My wife and girls do, and a few other ladies, wife and daughters 6 + 2 = 8 say 9 to be generous. 9 out of about 200 women. Why…it’s clearly been a tradition (I would almost use a “T”), it’s commanded by the Lord in scripture, and our Magesterium (Bishops) still obey this command. All three agree. Tradition, Scripture and Magesterium. But our ladies most will not comply.
Anyone have thoughts on why? Or the reason behind maybe the lack of knowlege that maybe they should be. Or down right refusal.
Let the comments flow forth!!!
M
Miserys_Fence
Guest
M
Miserys_Fence
Guest
When the Council of Trent starts paying my bills for me, I’ll be glad to stay home.
Miz
R
Rence
Guest
I think we can all agree that this is something that isn’t going to happen
Gone are the days when men married little girls to boss around (literally - how old was the common new bride when these things were written?). Women today are educated and work, and if they’re not working, they choose not to work. They are equal parties and equal contributors. If a man wants to marry a subordinate to be his servant, hey that’s fine, but then he can go out and get 2 or 3 jobs to support the family on his own and earn the “privelidge” of doing so. But that’s now how it turns out where I live. Where I live, both have jobs and both contribute to the family pot, and both pay the bills together and both have an equal investment in the marriage (monetarily, spiritually, emotionally, etc). There was a time and a place where comments about men “lording” over women were appropriate, but it’s not so today, not in my country anyway.
M
MrsMW
Guest
In my Catholic house the men all help clean up so the men and women can all talk together. The women do not smoke but we all enjoy world affairs, conservatism, and being Catholic. The men are always willing to go get the ladies a nice glass of wine. They value our work as stay at home Moms and they value our minds.
Catholicism has always valued the mind of a woman. Why else would we have women doctors of the Church? Was St Catherine of Sienna for condemned for her vocal opinions on how the Pope was acting? NO.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
I hadn’t realized modernity had so far introduced itself into even Catholic families that positions as absurd and contrary to the perennial teaching of the roles of the spouses and sexes in general as have been presented here would ever even be given a second thought, much less adopted, heading straightway off the precipice.
Are you aware that the title of Doctor of the Church was never applied to women until the 1960s?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=208
Should she not be a Doctor of the Church?
(do they maybe have nurses of the Church?)
M
MrsMW
Guest
So? Better late than never. All those women have something to teach about the Faith. Even before the 1960’s we have valued the heart and mind of women. St Julian, St Theresa of Avila, St Therese, to name a few. It is this that sets us apart from protestantism. Our sisters were running convents, hospitals, schools, orphanages,poorhouses, etc. That was all before the sixties.
I
IntegraCatholic
Guest
“…in 1970 Paul VI added St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena. John Paul II added St. Thérèse of Lisieux in 1997.”
newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm
Sorry, my mistake. 1970, not 1960s. No, Doctor of the Church is not an appropriate title for female saints. I don’t want to derail this thread, though. This would require a new thread altogether to discuss that problem.
newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm
Sorry, my mistake. 1970, not 1960s. No, Doctor of the Church is not an appropriate title for female saints. I don’t want to derail this thread, though. This would require a new thread altogether to discuss that problem.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Pope Paul VI and the Venerable Pope John Paul II obviously disagree with you.
There’s some good times at newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm while you’re over there.
- Status