A
alphawoman
Guest
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at reading that! Add that one to the “emasculating” thread.
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
Okay i will allow the women to express her opinion.
As for your duties as women, make my dinner now!
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I have never wasted my bandwidth on Dalrock, but I have heard that posters there actually band together and send people to CAF to post not just their own thoughts, but those of others.
That probably would explain why some of the posts aren’t actually direct answers to points made in the posts they are replying to, but are just general rants regarding the topic.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Right.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Those posts, because they seemed to dominate the forum for a time, are the reason I now embrace the label of feminist. The men in my life, family and friends, are not like them so it was an eye-opener for me.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Now that I think about it, I have to agree.
I also have to note that I don’t see Dalrock-esque men in my sphere of family and friends. Where I do see them is in my professional sphere where I encounter men who abuse their partners and children. Those guys may have never heard of Dalrock or red pill but have the same attitudes and beliefs.
X
Xantippe
Guest
1/5 of active male posters?
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
I would say not respecting him, especially in front of others. I know/knew a couple in which the woman would constantly make jokes about her man, well beyond playful teasing. It was to the point where it was kind of uncomfortable to listen to, yet he put up with it for years. It ended up not turning out very well for either of them.
In general, treating him like a child to be fussed at and taken to task.
Lastly, treating a man as though he is not needed is a pretty good way to get rid of him, imo.
In general, treating him like a child to be fussed at and taken to task.
Lastly, treating a man as though he is not needed is a pretty good way to get rid of him, imo.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Yes.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I’m curious what you mean by “not needed”?
I mean, in one sense - of course I don’t need a man. I’m not a child who needs someone to take care of her. That’s precisely why I can be in a relationship as a partner, because I don’t need the person that I’m with.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Man, I should have read a little deeper into this thread first before posting. This thing got deep, quick. Submission…barf…
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Not wanted would probably be a more appropriate way to put it. I was specifically thinking of a few couples where the attitude seems to be, “I only keep you around out of charity” and that they don’t bring anything to the relationship. Again really just a general lack of respect between the two. I meant to edit it but the timer expired on me.
X
Xantippe
Guest
X
Xantippe
Guest
Whoa–I’m glad I don’t get to see that!Not wanted would probably be a more appropriate way to put it. I was specifically thinking of a few couples where the attitude seems to be, “I only keep you around out of charity” and that they don’t bring anything to the relationship. Again really just a general lack of respect between the two. I meant to edit it but the timer expired on me.
(I do know of an older couple in my family that apparently stuck together “for the grandchildren” despite having nothing else in common. I heard that from their granddaughter.)
I
IWantGod
Guest
What does it mean to be the “Man of the house”. Is that a sexist ideology?
D
DarkLight
Guest
That makes more sense. That’s actually why I appreciate the idea of not “needing” a man - because if I don’t need him I feel much more free to want him.Not wanted would probably be a more appropriate way to put it. I was specifically thinking of a few couples where the attitude seems to be, “I only keep you around out of charity” and that they don’t bring anything to the relationship. Again really just a general lack of respect between the two. I meant to edit it but the timer expired on me.
There’s been some interesting studies lately pointing out that, while divorce is bad for children, growing up in a home where mom and dad argue all the time and don’t treat each other with respect may not be much better.
I was thinking about this thread earlier and something occurred to me…women in St. Paul’s time, and indeed even until after the time of Aquinas, were actually considered to be inferior to men in intellect and ability. Basically “perpetual minors”. This was a view that prevailed for a long time and only recently was properly addressed by the Church. You would have to admit that we have a much greater idea of the dignity of the human person, the emotional needs of men and women, and the fact that women are not intellectually inferior to men.
St. Paul was writing in his time as a man of his time, but we actually now know things about the human person that were not even thought of in that time. As such, we have to consider this in any valid interpretation of St. Paul. The Church has done this as well, especially John Paul II in Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body. The emphasis is on complementarity rather than obedience. And this goes right back to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, where there is not a hint of one spouse having full authority over the other. Also Jesus doesn’t suggest in his teaching on marriage that the wife should obey the husband. He also treated women with much more respect and care than would have been normal at the time.
St. Paul was writing in his time as a man of his time, but we actually now know things about the human person that were not even thought of in that time. As such, we have to consider this in any valid interpretation of St. Paul. The Church has done this as well, especially John Paul II in Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body. The emphasis is on complementarity rather than obedience. And this goes right back to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, where there is not a hint of one spouse having full authority over the other. Also Jesus doesn’t suggest in his teaching on marriage that the wife should obey the husband. He also treated women with much more respect and care than would have been normal at the time.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I suspect that there was a big cultural difference between the Jewish and the Greek/Roman idea of women. The Greeks tended to view women as essentially failed men, which is not really compatible with the Hebrew vision of creation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_views_on_women
Yeah…Aquinas held this view too.
L
Lucretius
Guest
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.
newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm
Christi pax.
- Status