what if you were in our (womens') shoes?

[FNDRB58]

I don’t agree with you. I don’t think a duty to be alter server for a little kid makes him wanna be a priest. Those who want to be priests are the one’s who are taught to respect the priesthood (through meeting good priests), have a calling to it, and who have a personal relationship with Christ.

When I see girls serving at the alter it seems just right. The boys and girls are children, they are like angels in some ways. I like to see it because it also tells me that girls are as much appeciated in the church as are boys, and I want to teach children that equality.
If the church makes women feel unwelcome then the women will stop coming to church and then the mother’s who should tell their sons about the greatness of priesthood will not do so.

Though angelic as all children are, there is still a function that males bring to the liturgy. This does not mean that the Church appreciates women less, on the contrary. It appreciates the role of both genders. If parents teach their children that altar servers must be boys by explaining to them that it does not mean inequality but rather function, then they will not feel unwelcomed or demeaned. It is the parents responsiblity to impart this difference to their children.

You also disagree with the Pope because he only uses altar servers who are men. Why are there no women? Because it is the man’s function in the Church.

The effect of changing the norms to allow girl servers will likely lead to further feminization of the Church; and we cannot have women priests. There have been many priests who served as altar boys so to say that being an altar boy does not motivate boys to a holy life is erroneous and unfounded.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The way I see it, is not that God is so interested in who plays what role in society, but that each person be content wherever they are.

So a woman who does not feel fulfilled in life for whatever reason, I’m guessing is not likely to become fulfilled if the circumstances were changed.

I’ve worked with some of the top minds in the world, when I was an engineer at Bell Labs. There were women that were certainly quite competent.

But at the time of the Bible, women didn’t do that. So God, rather than tell women they’d be happier if they created a political uprising, told them how to find peace and joy even though they may not have a great station in life. In fact, slaves and women because of their station in life, have certain spiritual advantages if they went with the flow, instead of trying to fight their identity and try to be more manly than men. It isn’t about technical skills, it’s about matters of the heart.

Every one of us who’s ever worked for a boss has our own story of feeling put down, and responsible for things we don’t have authority over, unless the boss was a saint.

So employees must keep a slave-master attitude, and men are well suited and trained to do this, by societal upbringing anyway. They must act submissive to the managers, or even if they do good work they will be considered having bad attitude. Why would a woman choose to go do that, if she had a choice (and some don’t I understand) to stay home and soak in as much connections with the kids she can until only to soon they fly away from the nest.

The problem is we have this sick idea that academic and financial prowess is the measure of a person. That’s garbage. We all know there are rich people galore with problems whose solutions money apparently can’t buy. :bible1:

If you learn true submission or at least the appearance of submission, whether it to a husband, boss, customer, police officer, or what have you, then that is a skill that is useful for many relationships. it isn’t about men or women. If the idea of being asked to be submissive is women-only, then I beg the wonderful ladies on this thread to enlighten me.

Alan

 

[FNDRB58]

No one is inferring any superiority or inferiority with regard to levels of competency or intelligence. I am certainly not. Most or all have been asserting that the genders serve different roles in society and I believe that was the way God planned it.

 

[Kleftiko]

We are equal in dignity but not equal in function. That was God’s plan. You are hung up on the fact that we humans need everything to be “equal”; this is a human endeavor, not a Godly endeavor. God obviously made the male to be the physically dominating gender. If we are supposed to be “equal” by human standards then you must ask the same question of God as to why He did not foster equality by this “physical advantage” He gave to men and not to women.

Contemporary standards of equality—that level out power differentials—is the kind of equality pursued in suffrage and civil rights movements. It may be well and good that all have equal dignity (though I think without equal power this concept is obscured), it is not enough by modern standards. It seems to be the case that many women reject not what they believe their God-assigned role is, but that certain parts of the Bible are God-inspired. The power differentials act as evidence, for some, for that scripture is more man-made than divine. I’m not suggesting we duke it out over this point; I’m only suggesting ways that these issues may be perceived.

Mothers are always closer to their children. There are exceptions of course, but thats the general rule. No man can compare to the bond a mother and an infant has, especially with the 9 months in the womb and breastfeeding.

The social psychological literature doesn’t support this claim. As I mentioned already, although infants are initially more attached to their mothers (because of a familiarity with rhythms, smells, sounds, and food acquisition), they are just as attached to their fathers within the first year (and often more so because of differences in types of play—but this aside). I encourage you to look through Ross D. Parke’s Fatherhood, where he documents and explains his research findings (there’s a preview on Google Books!).

Its inherent with all mothers and their child, and if its not there then it was the fault of the mother for breaking that bond.

It’s a common feature in both parents, as I’ve suggested, but there’s nothing necessary about this. Sometimes infants and children have a propensity to be insecurely attached, irrespective of the warmth of parental practices. Mothers shouldn’t immediately blame themselves if attachment becomes an issue. Another resource in this area is Mary Ainsworth’s pioneering attachment studies.

The age of anecdotes has not met its end, but we should seek scholarly answers to questions when available.

 

[Stephen168]

I understand the frustration, but you persist in waxing abstractly about things I want concrete examples of. Envy is an abstraction–a feeling, as you’ve said. It’s not behaviour, as I’ve requested. I was just asking whether you thought a woman wanting insurance to cover the birth control pill was too lofty a request; too close to what men are allowed to claim on their insurance; too much like wanting to be like a man?

“Women are just envious” is not an example; it’s your constructed explanation
“The first post [is an example of how a woman wants to be like a man]” If it is, then tell me in what way.

I asked you to be specific, and you refuse. I’m sorry if you don’t like the game of defending your point, but you haven’t yet done so. You see where I’m coming from.

Envy is an feeling, a pain caused by the good fortune of others; actual or perceived. You have and I don’t; you can and I can’t; you don’t have to but I do; etc.

I agreed with another poster that the OP was a “brilliant depiction of the deadly sin of envy.” I added that gender feminism is also envy in that they want to be men contrary to the biological difference.

You asked for evidence of some women wanting to be men, which is a slight tangent to addressing the envy displayed in the OP.

I explained how gender feminism relates to envy:

Some women believe power (ability to act) is the only thing worth having, they perceive men as having power, and they don’t believe there is any biological difference as to why they too can not act (power) like men. Of course they are not men, can not be men (act like men), and seemed to be frustrated unhappy people.

Then I gave an example by briefly describing when I first noticed this:

when viagra was released to the market and covered by health insurance companies. ‘Feminist’ began to opine that women’s birth control should also be covered by health insurance companies become they were basically the same as viagra. Simplified, their reasoning was they wanted to act like men; the worst of men at that.

After two examples of envy you responded with

So, to answer my question, you’re suggesting that because women wanted the birth control pill to be covered under insurance, that they wanted to [act like / be] a man? Can you think of any** more** concrete examples.

After two examples of envy which included one example of some women wanting to be like men, I was done and told you so.

Now you are convoluting the envy displayed in the OP with the envy of gender feminism and concluding I said the OP wants to be a man. I never said that. I’ll leave it to you to find the “men can, women can’t” “men don’t have to, women do” (whether factual or perceived) statements in the OP.

You now are suggesting that you are not familiar with the feminist argument on why birth control pills are the same as viagra. I assumed you were because you didn’t ask for clarification before, just more examples. Give me the argument and tell you why I believe they want to act like men.

You are also claiming that I said “women are just envious” which I never said.

I don’t believe you were asking me to be specific but were in fact asking for “more concrete example.” So no I have no idea where you are coming from.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The social psychological literature doesn’t support this claim. As I mentioned already, although infants are initially more attached to their mothers (because of a familiarity with rhythms, smells, sounds, and food acquisition), they are just as attached to their fathers within the first year (and often more so because of differences in types of play—but this aside). I encourage you to look through Ross D. Parke’s Fatherhood, where he documents and explains his research findings (there’s a preview on Google Books!).

I have one word to bring into this discussion: breastfeeding

Alan

 

[Kleftiko]

I have one word to bring into this discussion: breastfeeding

Alan

I understand breastfeeding to be a great time in which mothers and infants engage with one another and become more attached. It doesn’t change the research however (I’ve given sources for this). Maybe I could postulate an explanation for why these anecdotes aren’t confirmed by the research: because there’s breastfeeding, and there’s everything else. Feeding isn’t the only event during which to bond; it’s not even necessarily the strongest event. Ross D. Parke and Mary Ainsworth: lots of seminal work in this area.

 

[Kleftiko]

I have no idea where you are coming from.

Apparently not.

Let me just ask this then, to simplify things: is there any reason the birth control pill shouldn’t be covered by insurance?

 

[FNDRB58]

Contemporary standards of equality—that level out power differentials—is the kind of equality pursued in suffrage and civil rights movements. It may be well and good that all have equal dignity (though I think without equal power this concept is obscured), it is not enough by modern standards. It seems to be the case that many women reject not what they believe their God-assigned role is, but that certain parts of the Bible are God-inspired. The power differentials act as evidence, for some, for that scripture is more man-made than divine. I’m not suggesting we duke it out over this point; I’m only suggesting ways that these issues may be perceived.

On a level, social equality is indeed necessary and moral. It is the concept of absolute equality that seems to be advocated in this thread that I am disputing. I believe what others see as not equal, should be seen as genders serving different functions …as God planned.
The Church is run by men due to their priestly vocations instituted by God. Most soldiers are men due to their physical strength. In most every other occupation or endeavor women have every opportunity to participate and excel…at least in this country.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I understand breastfeeding to be a great time in which mothers and infants engage with one another and become more attached. It doesn’t change the research however (I’ve given sources for this). Maybe I could postulate an explanation for why these anecdotes aren’t confirmed by the research: because there’s breastfeeding, and there’s everything else. Feeding isn’t the only event during which to bond; it’s not even necessarily the strongest event. Ross D. Parke and Mary Ainsworth: lots of seminal work in this area.

You have given me a good explanation of it, IMO, and I thank you for taking the time to do that. :tiphat:

But I’m not asking what some pointy headed academics figured out in some sterile lab.

I’m asking women who have breastfed to tell us men about the experience. Sure it is “enjoyable” and “bonding” but come on, if you don’t want us to be jealous of you, at least admit you have something you can do with the baby that we can’t, and try to tell us something of how it makes you feel. Wouldn’t you feel isolated and excluded if we could feed the baby in a way you couldn’t, and we tried to convince you that it was no big deal? How cruel is that to the entire male population?

Anyway, I’m going to go pray now, thank you all again for your passion and openness, and helping me to understand not only mysteries, but the whole concept of mystery. You have helped bring me into better communion with my family members and God. Thanks again.

Alan

 

[surfinpure]

Apparently not.

Let me just ask this then, to simplify things: is there any reason the birth control pill shouldn’t be covered by insurance?

Besides the fact that it’s abortifacient in nature and does not prevent or cure any disease??

 

[Kleftiko]

Besides the fact that it’s abortifacient in nature and does not prevent or cure any disease??

Yes, besides that, please.

 

[surfinpure]

Yes, besides that, please.

I thought so.

 

[Stephen168]

Apparently not.

Let me just ask this then, to simplify things: is there any reason the birth control pill shouldn’t be covered by insurance?

Just to avoid jumping around again in the future, and prevent the back track I’ve had to do, I’d like to make sure I understand.

Does this mean you do now understand that the OP is a “depiction of the sin of envy” and you would like to move on to the example of gender feminism being an example of envy because they want to act like men?

 

[Kleftiko]

I thought so.

No, really. Besides that. I’m only dealing in secular terms here. In the non-religious world, the contraceptive pill isn’t the same as an abortion. This is why I hated Stephen’s example–because it’s foolish on some level I really don’t feel like debating in this particular thread.

Look at it this way. Let’s say a woman gets the pill for the lone purpose of regulating and easing some of the symptoms of her period. Is there any reason, outside of your equalizing the pill with abortion, that it shouldn’t be covered under insurance.

 

[Kleftiko]

Just to avoid jumping around again in the future, and prevent the back track I’ve had to do, I’d like to make sure I understand.

Does this mean you do now understand that the OP is a “depiction of the sin of envy” and you would like to move on to the example of gender feminism being an example of envy because they want to act like men?

I don’t consider it an appropriate characterization to say the OP is envious, and I don’t consider envy a “sin” (a bad thing; something which takes away from our character) necessarily.

And gender feminism is extremely broad to say that it is an example, unto itself, of envy. This is why I’ve had difficulty addressing your “examples.” In one case, you’ve generalized to a whole category of study as an example of envy, and in another, your example is tied to yet further perplexities that confound the point of this discussion (i.e., pill = abortion).

 

[surfinpure]

No, really. Besides that. I’m only dealing in secular terms here. In the non-religious world, the contraceptive pill isn’t the same as an abortion. This is why I hated Stephen’s example–because it’s foolish on some level I really don’t feel like debating in this particular thread.

Look at it this way. Let’s say a woman gets the pill for the lone purpose of regulating and easing some of the symptoms of her period. Is there any reason, outside of your equalizing the pill with abortion, that it shouldn’t be covered under insurance.

1. I suppose that would depend on what information the insurance could collect about the actual medical diagnosis and need for the drug.
2. How did we get here from the original post about how bad women have it in Christianity?

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t consider it an appropriate characterization to say the OP is envious, and I don’t consider envy a “sin” (a bad thing; something which takes away from our character) necessarily.

And gender feminism is extremely broad to say that it is an example, unto itself, of envy. This is why I’ve had difficulty addressing your “examples.” In one case, you’ve generalized to a whole category of study as an example of envy, and in another, your example is tied to yet further perplexities that confound the point of this discussion (i.e., pill = abortion).

Envy is the root of unhappiness. Unhappiness is not good. Therefore envy is wrong. I don’t like seeing people frustrated and unhappy as seen in the OP. You can ignore the “men can, women can’t” “men don’t have to, women do” (whether factual or perceived) statements in the OP, but they are there; envy is clearly there.

Gender feminism is an example of envy as I gave an example of it. My example said nothing about pill=abortion. This is the second post where you falsely claimed I’ve said things; very sad.

I’m beginning to think you have not heard the gender feminist argument on how viagra and birth control are the same.

 

[Kleftiko]

1. I suppose that would depend on what information the insurance could collect about the actual medical diagnosis and need for the drug.

Kinda iffy on the provision of evidence to get a basic thing like the pill, but fair enough. Let’s say the pill is a remedy for an otherwise excruciating condition.

1. How did we get here from the original post about how bad women have it in Christianity?

You piggybacked on a conversation I was having with Stephen. Women wanting the pill was said to be, somehow, in response to men wanting viagra. It was the conversation surrounding women wanting what men have: a characterizaiton of some women’s difficulty with passages in the bible.

Envy is the root of unhappiness. Unhappiness is not good. Therefore envy is wrong. I don’t like seeing people frustrated and unhappy as seen in the OP. You can ignore the “men can, women can’t” “men don’t have to, women do” (whether factual or perceived) statements in the OP, but they are there; envy is clearly there.

Only in the way that slaves are envious of freedom, I guess I’m thinking, which is why I think envy is a crude characterization of a basic want for equality–one that contemporary society doesn’t denegrate, but which Catholics still manage to.

Gender feminism is an example of envy as I gave an example of it. My example said nothing about pill=abortion. This is the second post where you falsely claimed I’ve said things; very sad.

I’m beginning to think you have not heard the gender feminist argument on how viagra and birth control are the same.

I’m only guessing at your position here because you haven’t explained this. Indeed, I have not heard that viagra and the birth control pill are the same thing. It wasn’t my position so I didn’t address it further. Tell me about this argument and how it’s suppose to relate to this conversation.

 

[Stephen168]

Only in the way that slaves are envious of freedom, I guess I’m thinking, which is why I think envy is a crude characterization of a basic want for equality–one that contemporary society doesn’t denegrate, but which Catholics still manage to.

Envy has nothing to do with equality; justice does. Envy is a pain caused by the good fortune of others; actual or perceived. Envy would apply to a free man that perceives himself to be a slave. The OP contains perceived good fortunes of other.

only guessing at your position here because you haven’t explained this. Indeed, I have not heard that viagra and the birth control pill are the same thing. It wasn’t my position so I didn’t address it further. Tell me about this argument and how it’s suppose to relate to this conversation.

That is right, I never gave my position but it didn’t stop you from attacking it. I never said that viagra being equal to birth control was your position, but it is the position of gender feminists.