Oh yes, by all means spread misogynistic stupidity to secular Asia. Can’t leave anywhere un-ruined.And sadly, some Catholic Christian circles as well. A perusal of the Spirituality forum often reveals those who think “Devotion X has brought me great graces, so every single Catholic should also practice Devotion X”.
I do get the feeling some US Catholics have certainly subconsciously accepted a fundamentalist mindset when it comes to gender roles. Some even go as far as to state saints such as Joan of Arc and Gianna Molla were canonized despite their lives involving stepping out of a traditional role for women, and make a point of stating “just because someone is a Saint doesn’t mean everything they did should be emulated”.
I suppose that if I were to ask “so did they have to go through Purgatory before going to heaven” they would state “obviously”.
It also seems that many Catholics in Asian countries have an understanding of gender roles that is more about their traditional cultural norms than actual Church teaching.
Nah, because in the Middle Ages, becoming a nun was a respectable option for a woman.Oh yes, by all means spread misogynistic stupidity to secular Asia. Can’t leave anywhere un-ruined.
America is composed largely of Europeans who fled the rise of rational thought in Europe. The Catholic misogynists are somewhere in the Napoleonic era mentally. The Fundi Prots are in the middle ages.
Indeed!No problem on the formatting, Xantippe.
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I will see how it works in my romantic endeavors. I hope she, whoever she is, is nice and clear like that!
Your Eminence,
Dear Brother Bishops,
- In the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, I warmly welcome you, the second
group of Latin Rite Bishops of India, on the occasion of your Visit
Ad Limina Apostolorum
. I
The response of the Church in India must be to continue to promote the sanctity of married life, and the “innate language that expresses the total self-giving of husband and wife”.
10
The Church is called to proclaim that true love is Christian love, and
Christian love is chaste love. I encourage you to support programmes of
education which emphasize the Church’s teaching in this regard.
At the same time, efforts which respect the dignity and rights of women
must be made to guarantee that at all levels of Indian society a “new feminism”
is promoted. This will “reject the temptation of ‘male domination’, in order to
acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of
society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation”.
Oh, the fundis have plenty of spinsters and overage bachelors. This most likely has something to do with their extreme fringe social nature which results in having no friends. Mind you, I’m referring to the real bob jones-type cool aid drinkers, not just some random protestant on the street.Nah, because in the Middle Ages, becoming a nun was a respectable option for a woman.
On the other hand, I’ve heard of situations like “I didn’t want to, but he kept pushing and I couldn’t leave, so I said yes because I didn’t think I could say no.” And I’ve heard a LOT of “I’ve said no a million times and this guy just won’t stop bugging me!!!” And of course the ever-present “she was too intoxicated to say no, she just kind of lay there, but she didn’t say no so it wasn’t rape!” (That last one is getting more and more frowned on - I hear the first two more commonly.) I think that’s a lot of what feminists are trying to get at with affirmative consent. Not to set up a gotcha trap, but to make sure your partner is really interested in whatever you’re doing and not just feeling like they’ve been pressured or harassed into it.Yes a robust conversation about consent is important. I grate at the idea when I hear it though. It seems to presume that women (in particular) are cartesian robots who actually operate in a “yes or no” world like a computer program when it comes to romantic propositions. I’m sure some are very up front, but some like the chase, and yet according to most feminist talk I hear, not getting an ‘enthusiastic yes’ every 2 minutes is somehow ‘rape’ (boy do they like to throw that word around!). And this is the idea that gets taught as dogma at every single western college to impressionable youngsters.
There’s a conceptual difference between “after the coming of Christ” and “after the spread of Christianity.”The thing with Plato and Aristotle however are that, I think it’s a good bet that if they had lived after the coming of Christ, they would have been devout Catholics like Aquinas.
I think the problem that many feminist rape victim advocates run into, is that many feminists have embraced the sexual revolution to the point that the ONLY sexual taboo left is “don’t have sex without consent”. Some feminist thought even sees sexual fidelity on the part of a woman is strictly optional, because “a man telling a woman who to have sex with is controlling and wrong” even if that man is the woman’s husband.One thing I think the feminist movement does miss is that there are a lot of things that, while not exactly criminal sexual assault, are still pretty inappropriate things to do. I think, say, harassing a girl into sexual activity is one of these things - it probably shouldn’t be illegal, but it still makes you a boor with no respect for women.
Definitely. I think it’s clear to me that there are situations that are exploitative and wrong without necessarily falling all the way into legal rape. I think a lot of wider society even recognizes this - I can’t repeat them here, but there are some rather unflattering terms for guys who sleep around and don’t care about their partners.I think the problem that many feminist rape victim advocates run into, is that many feminists have embraced the sexual revolution to the point that the ONLY sexual taboo left is “don’t have sex without consent”. Some feminist thought even sees sexual fidelity on the part of a woman is strictly optional, because “a man telling a woman who to have sex with is controlling and wrong” even if that man is the woman’s husband.
So, the only way to criticize boorish men who treat women like objects, while not contradicting the “it is wrong to put any limits on sexual activity UNLESS it is not consensual” narrative, is to expand the definition of “non-consensual” to cover a whole lot of situations that fall far short of actual rape.
Heck, we see that on CAF a lot. How many guys do we have come on here who, having been unchaste themselves, refuse to consider any woman who has ever committed a sexual sin?But that double standard still exists. The recent topic of Callista Gingrich, and how many posters expressed how scandalized they were that she was nominated as ambassador to the Vatican, showed that many Catholics still find female sexual sin to be scandalous in a “she should have known better because she’s a woman” way, that they don’t apply to male sexual sin.
Everything could be solved by making extramarital sex legally considered to be probably rape. This would leave the male rakes scared righteous and leave the whores with no one to carry out their evil with.I think the problem that many feminist rape victim advocates run into, is that many feminists have embraced the sexual revolution to the point that the ONLY sexual taboo left is “don’t have sex without consent”. Some feminist thought even sees sexual fidelity on the part of a woman is strictly optional, because “a man telling a woman who to have sex with is controlling and wrong” even if that man is the woman’s husband.
So, the only way to criticize boorish men who treat women like objects, while not contradicting the “it is wrong to put any limits on sexual activity UNLESS it is not consensual” narrative, is to expand the definition of “non-consensual” to cover a whole lot of situations that fall far short of actual rape.
One issue many feminists have pointed out that I do agree with it, is that the traditional sexual double standards are unfair to women. I don’t agree with their solution, which is “if men can fool around and get away with it, then women should be able to do it too!”
But that double standard still exists. The recent topic of Callista Gingrich, and how many posters expressed how scandalized they were that she was nominated as ambassador to the Vatican, showed that many Catholics still find female sexual sin to be scandalous in a “she should have known better because she’s a woman” way, that they don’t apply to male sexual sin.
It is? the sentiment usually seems to be that any female immorality should be forgiven, but male masturbators should be crucified.Definitely. I think it’s clear to me that there are situations that are exploitative and wrong without necessarily falling all the way into legal rape. I think a lot of wider society even recognizes this - I can’t repeat them here, but there are some rather unflattering terms for guys who sleep around and don’t care about their partners.
Heck, we see that on CAF a lot. How many guys do we have come on here who, having been unchaste themselves, refuse to consider any woman who has ever committed a sexual sin?
You might be surprised. Maybe this evening I can dig out some of the threads…It is? the sentiment usually seems to be that any female immorality should be forgiven, but male masturbators should be crucified.
I think there’s probably a disanalogy in that the fornication by women is generally in the past, but the masturbation is normally an ongoing thing.It is? the sentiment usually seems to be that any female immorality should be forgiven, but male masturbators should be crucified.
Now that I think about it, that seems to be the pattern. Most threads about male masturbation are threads about a current issue - in which case the answer is to stop. Most of the threads about female sexual sin are more about a guy finding the woman has been unchaste in the past, at which point there isn’t much to do but forgive and move on.I think there’s probably a disanalogy in that the fornication by women is generally in the past, but the masturbation is normally an ongoing thing.
When there’s ongoing fornication by whichever sex, I think people are pretty consistent in saying STOP!
I think the issue is more about the porn that often accompanies the masturbation. I also haven’t seen much of people stating “porn and masturbation are WORSE than actual physical fornication or adultery”. I have seen many posters, mostly women, state that a man who is a physical virgin but is in to porn and masturbation, is a hypocrite for spurning a woman who isn’t a virgin.I think there’s probably a disanalogy in that the fornication by women is generally in the past, but the masturbation is normally an ongoing thing.
When there’s ongoing fornication by whichever sex, I think people are pretty consistent in saying STOP!
I don’t accept the conceptual difference as a valid one. It implies that what Christ taught and what goes by Christianity are different things. They aren’t. I mean historically speaking there wasn’t the idea of “Christianity” until Luther came along. There was the Catholic Church and the heresies which it rejected.There’s a conceptual difference between “after the coming of Christ” and “after the spread of Christianity.”
If Plato had been born the same year that the Apostle Paul appealed to Caesar, then why would Plato have been any kind of Christian?
Also, where does Socrates fit into this? Without the influence of Socrates, would Plato have taken an interest in philosophy? Maybe Plato would have pursued a completely different occupation.
Yes, quite frustrating.Indeed!
Have you ever noticed how TIRING it is to deal with people who won’t say what they mean?
I think here the conceptual difference isn’t saying that there’s a difference in teaching. It’s saying there’s a pragmatic difference between the world right after Christianity was instituted, and the world where Christianity had become widespread in the west, in terms of how likely people were to have accepted it.I don’t accept the conceptual difference as a valid one. It implies that what Christ taught and what goes by Christianity are different things. They aren’t. I mean historically speaking there wasn’t the idea of “Christianity” until Luther came along. There was the Catholic Church and the heresies which it rejected.
Good point.I think here the conceptual difference isn’t saying that there’s a difference in teaching. It’s saying there’s a pragmatic difference between the world right after Christianity was instituted, and the world where Christianity had become widespread in the west, in terms of how likely people were to have accepted it.