B
BingoBoy
Guest
…Apparently this is a new thing now. 
What’s the deal??
What’s the deal??
- Status
1
1ke
Guest
To which threads do you refer?
A
AthenaC
Guest
All the ones with an “r” in them.
B
BingoBoy
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=681920 - where did the anti family vibe come from
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683478 - men/women different responses to chastity.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683873 - advice on marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683525 - men’s rights and catholicism
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=682916 - male’s in traditional marriage
There were a couple others this past month that got deleted.
But anyway, if you read through all these you’ll see an astounding amount of anti women attitude from quite a few members (mostly male members). I’ve never seen this type of attitude be sooo prevalent on CAF before. Where is this all coming from??
1
1ke
Guest
None of those threads you linked to are “anti-woman” threads. I haven’t the foggiest notion what you are talking about.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Disagreeing doesn’t mean anti woman.
1
1ke
Guest
I did read through them and I have no idea why you think these threads are anti-woman.
And, I am a woman.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
You forgot the last name change thread.
Or, my favorite, the one in popular media about how the pixar movie Brave is part of the “radical feminist agenda” because teaches girls that they can reject tradition and “be their immature little selves”. Yeah, that thread was horrifying.
The anti woman thing around here lately has really started to freak me out. I really didn’t know that there were still so many people who believe that women should be at home and out of society, and that women who aren’t mothers are rejecting the only thing that will make them truly happy.
Or, my favorite, the one in popular media about how the pixar movie Brave is part of the “radical feminist agenda” because teaches girls that they can reject tradition and “be their immature little selves”. Yeah, that thread was horrifying.
The anti woman thing around here lately has really started to freak me out. I really didn’t know that there were still so many people who believe that women should be at home and out of society, and that women who aren’t mothers are rejecting the only thing that will make them truly happy.
N
Nabooru
Guest
I’m new and when I first came across these threads, I thought “Whoaaa, I thought I’d left this behind when I left my fundamentalist Lutheran church!”
A
AthenaC
Guest
I see exactly what you are talking about. As 1ke demonstrates, many people (including some of the more questionable posters) really don’t see how they are anti-woman.
But from my informal observations, there seems to be a particular group of male posters (group A) that post misogynist things (for the vast majority, they are not maliciously misogynist, just naively so, not that it makes them much more pleasant to interact with). There also seems to be a particular group of posters (group B) that will call group A out on things they say that are: 1) misogynist, and 2) simply untrue.
What particularly bothers me is that when group B points out specific examples and hard facts that irrefutably demonstrate that group A is (to put it charitably) mistaken, group A either:
- ignores group B
- posts a reply that (seemingly) deliberately doesn’t address what group B said, and instead repeats that group A thinks, and in some cases tangentially expounding upon their utopian, -]rose-colored/-] deep magenta-colored glasses view on “the way things used to be”
- ackowledges group B but brushes it off with “oh well that doesn’t really happen,” and in some cases tangentially expounding upon their utopian, -]rose-colored/-] deep magenta-colored glasses view on “the way things used to be”
Anyway, it is one thing to charitably disagree, but it is another thing entirely to insist that one is correct in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence. Particularly in the case where the views one holds would lead to unconscionable consequences for a not-insignificant number of women were these views the current law of the land / social convention. This is why many of these threads seem anti-woman.
M
Mary_Fleurdelis
Guest
Anti-woman? I never got that impression. More like traditionalism. However, I’m confused about something. Women can’t stay at home and be feminists? Women are “out of society” even though they don’t spend most their week in a work bubble, instead socializing with other women and mothers, coaches, neighborhood associations, shopping, dealing with repairmen, and running the house? If you’re a feminist, you should believe a woman deserves equal rights no matter what kind of life she chooses.
meltzerboy
New member
I don’t think the threads are anti-women per se. They may be against feminist behavior, which for many posters on CAF derives from secular, liberal, anti-Catholic, and perhaps gay ideology. But women themselves are not really demeaned. It may appear to be a fine line, but there is a distinction.…Apparently this is a new thing now.
What’s the deal??
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
This.
I think some of the people making these threads are divorced enough from the rest of us that they don’t view these things as being anti-women, whereas we do.
Agreed, and I’m a guy.
The “man is head of the household” stuff is out of control.
Ephesians 5:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing** her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.**
Notice the following points:
How coincidental is it for men that the men who interpret these passages determined that men have fewer obligations towards their spouse than women do. A man must only love his wife, while a woman must love her husband and submit to him.
- Ephesians 5:21 is ignored, in full. You would think it doesn’t exist.
- The commands given to wives in Ephesians 5:22-24 are for some crazy reason presumed to be a “one way street” (in part because Ephesians 5:21 is ignored.)
- However, consider Ephesians 5:25 wherein husbands are commanded to love their wives. Take note: by the logic of the misogynistic interpretations, this would mean wives are not under an obligation to love their husbands. But no one believes that, now do they?
Yet they tell us that these interpretations are not sexist. LOL!
meltzerboy:
A very fine line and one that, I fear, has been crossed with talk of women being bound to the home, in full obedience to their husband and so on.
We are all subject to some kind of bias, of course, but I do not think that I am saying this to promote any radical feminist agenda. As you can see by a thread I started here, I am quite concerned that we acknowledge the dignity and equality in Christ of both male and female, husband and wife.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Yeah exactly. Some women won’t be fulfilled unless they stay at home and have a bunch of kids. That’s their calling. Others have different callings. I would imagine that feminists would be on board with women deciding what kind of lifestyles they want for themselves. If they choose traditionalism, that doesn’t make them less a woman. Likewise if a woman chooses to work that doesn’t make her a radical feminist or bad mother or any of the kind. And if a woman finds that God is not calling her to be a wife and mother nor a member of a religious order, who are we to get in the way of His message and presume we know better?
Getting on board with pro-abortion agendas, campaigning for women priests or something like that, well that’s where I have to draw the line. And yeah I guess it’s easier for me as a guy but I’d tell my fellow men getting on board with pushing for “the pill for men” would also be outside of Christ’s teaching so there you go.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I am a feminist. And I don’t think that there is anything wrong with staying at home if that’s what the woman chooses to do because that’s what she wants for herself and her family. But saying that a woman must stay home, that it is immoral for her not to, or that she’s rejecting her femininity by working is anti woman. At that point you aren’t treating her as an individual who is capable of making her own choices. You are instead making decisions for her based on her gender alone, and that robs her of her basic dignity.
And yes, people who believe that women must stay home are pretty vocal about resenting women in the workforce and in positions of power. It is an effort to keep them from really participating in and shaping society.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Christ submitted to his Church to the point of death, even death on a cross. I don’t know how much more submissive you can get.
The point that men are generally predisposed to leadership and women generally predisposed to following and falling for strong leaders is well-documented. As I’ve said in threads past, it’s SCIENCE!
But these general observations have more to do with disposition rather than who has moral authority or the “last say” in a household when it comes to decision-making, discipline, etc. That is up to individual married couples. They are the ones to determine how best their personalities mesh and how they can best serve God and one another. The Church is silent on the matter except to demand that husbands and wives give their entire selves to one another. I really don’t see how people can get those wires crossed and yet they do.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Except that’s not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that women and men alike are to prayerfully consider God’s calling in all aspects of their lives. The Church teaches that husbands and wives be totally giving of themselves to each other at all times. How they decide to do that is up to them.
That said, there’s plenty of insanity out there saying that you’re holding back feminism or not a real modern woman if you choose to be a SAHM. Who the heck cares what people decide God is calling them to do? The only thing that matters is that the decisions are made prayerfully and are geared towards serving family and God (if you have a family) or the community and God if you do not have a family. You are to place yourself last. But like I said, that goes for everybody.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Precisely.
However, note that some choose so-called “traditionalism” (which is not at all “traditional”, unless you only go back a few hundred years), whereas others are told that they must choose so-called “traditionalism.”
Women are not children, and they do not deserve to be treated as such… they are equal to men in dignity under Christ. However, when one says, for example, that a woman is “always under the authority of a man - first, her father, then, her husband,” or “women are not free to join the workplace as this is not the role intended for them,” then that is not acknowledging the dignity of women under Christ.
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, I agree with you. However, which threads on this Forum say that a woman must stay home for her family and cannot work outside the home?
- Status