L
LucyLight
Guest
You lost me on factually supported premises. This is an example of a smug post. I’ve been pretty polite here. Your last post was probably the rudest on this thread yet.
- Status
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
The points you attribute to my position are not points that I or portrait have made at all.Logic being the fall of the family is all women’s fault for not being house wives, and we should read the catechism from the 1500 rather than the current catechism, and we should pay attention to the pope from the 1800 verses our latest blessed pope?
- You claim we’re arguing that the deterioration of family life is “all women’s fault”, yet it’s us who are arguing for the Church’s teaching of male headship of the family. Headship means responsiblity, not a power trip. If the husband is the head of the family, he bears ultimate responsiblity for the family’s failures. “Blame the wife” doesn’t pass Catholic muster. Adam tried it, God rejected it.
-You claim we should pay attention to “the pope from the 1800” instead of our latest pope. I’ve never claimed that. Rather, I argue that we should listen to the teachings of all of our popes, because the unbroken succession from Peter to Benedict XVI is one of the central elements of the apostolic nature of the Church. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Personally, I find Leo XIII has much to say to our day. So does Pius XI and John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
It appears you want to make things into an “either/or”. I think that’s a common error in modern life, when often times the correct answer is “both”. The central flaw of modern feminism is that it either tries to set men and women against each other in competition or else obliterate all distinction between the two and establish social androgyny. The Catholic position, articulated by Leo XIII, John Paul II, and many others, is that men and women are different and also complimentary.
Pax Christi
L
LucyLight
Guest
Portrait blames almost everything on feminism(women). Yes men can be feminists but he goes on to define who the offenders are; and they are women. The only times that I have seen him blame something or someone else is when I’ve brought it up myself (eg. absent fathers). This is his singular answer for everything. I haven’t read enough of your posts to know if this is your issue or not but you are grouping yourself together with portrait so that is why I am mentioning him.
Btw, the Catechism of the council of trent was not meant for the laity. If you are looking for an answer to a current issue and you want to refrence the Catechism than you should refrence a current one. I asked my very orthodox deacon friend about this and he said if you are debating someone and they refrence the Catechism from the 1500s you should probably stop talking to them. He is one of the most diplomatic non-reactive people I know. I guess I’m a slow learner
.Another thing, posters like yourself who continually blame feminism keep saying that men and women are different. Duh!! I have yet to see someone on here claim otherwise. But everytime you say this it appears like other posters are arguing otherwise, its disingenuous.
Peter Kreeft said this,
"The two most ridiculous errors about men and women are unisexism and male chauvinism. The unisex feminist says that women and men are not different in value, therefore they’re not different in nature. The male chauvinist says that men and women are different in nature, therefore they’re different in value."
I don’t see posters on here making the first error but when a poster blames almost everything on women and sets up a hierarchy between the sexes than they are guilty of the second error.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
Portrait and Dan have provided plenty of informative support for their claims, whether you deem it ultimately enough to constitute proof or not. However, just take careful account of the significantly greater length displayed in their responses, in contrast to the short and rather glib replies they frequently receive. I’d say Baelor is the only poster who’s been consistently objecting to them in a reciprocally-rigorous, point-by-point fashion that contests the real arguments through narrowed-down analysis – similar to the form of this post here, as but one humble example.
Yes, you’ve certainly been one of the more polite and reasonable ones. So far Baelor and you seem to be exhibiting a sufficient amount of intellectual honesty and charity indeed, although I do find you to mostly miss the main purpose motivating Portrait and Dan’s efforts. (That’s arguably rooted in the fundamental nature of the disagreement, though, because I suspect you harbor a basic bias favoring the modern as such, which is causing your inherent aversion to their perspective and is probably innocently invisible to you.) At the same time, I only directly implicated Debora and specifically named Walking_Home, so if you resented my accusation, you simply read more into my words than was justified by either their content or context.
How so? I disagree.
Preposterous. I surmise that you must be construing it in your mind’s ear as accompanied by an unduly harsh and unfriendly voice tone.
C
catharina
Guest
The legalization of abortion might have been
the final nail in the coffin friendly to families thinking.
Since then it’s women have the right to kill the babies
in their wombs and Me First thinking for men and women.
As in: babies, families, responsibilities - who needs 'em?
obama has said he wants to be sure his daughters retain
the right to kill their children in the womb - if they choose.
That’s his own GRANDCHILDREN! No rocket science needed.
L
LucyLight
Guest
Thanks for adding to the topic on hand.
I’m not taking the bait here. This is incredibly obnoxious.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
A few points:Portrait blames almost everything on feminism(women). Yes men can be feminists but he goes on to define who the offenders are; and they are women. The only times that I have seen him blame something or someone else is when I’ve brought it up myself (eg. absent fathers). This is his singular answer for everything. I haven’t read enough of your posts to know if this is your issue or not but you are grouping yourself together with portrait so that is why I am mentioning him.
Btw, the Catechism of the council of trent was not meant for the laity. If you are looking for an answer to a current issue and you want to refrence the Catechism than you should refrence a current one. I asked my very orthodox deacon friend about this and he said if you are debating someone and they refrence the Catechism from the 1500s you should probably stop talking to them. He is one of the most diplomatic non-reactive people I know. I guess I’m a slow learner
Another thing, posters like yourself who continually blame feminism keep saying that men and women are different. Duh!! I have yet to see someone on here claim otherwise. But everytime you say this it appears like other posters are arguing otherwise, its disingenuous.
Peter Kreeft said this,
"The two most ridiculous errors about men and women are unisexism and male chauvinism. The unisex feminist says that women and men are not different in value, therefore they’re not different in nature. The male chauvinist says that men and women are different in nature, therefore they’re different in value."
I don’t see posters on here making the first error but when a poster blames almost everything on women and sets up a hierarchy between the sexes than they are guilty of the second error.
The CCC was written primarily for Bishops. It says so right at the beginning of it. It’s also very useful for laity (as is the Roman Catechism aka the Catechism of the Council of Trent) and it does say so, but it is primarily written for Bishops. So if Catechisms intended for bishops are out, then the CCC is out.
Secondly, as I’ve pointed out, the CCC references the Catechism of Trent. So if we are to take the advice of the deacpm you talked to that anyone who references the Catechism of Trent is not to be talked to…then we would have to stop listening to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and the many other people who contributed to the CCC which references the Catechism of Trent.
Feminism is not male or female. Feminism is an ideology. I’d say in many cases, women work outside of the home when it is not necessary in very large part because of the influence of men. Either their boyfriend/father of their children, refuses to get married and provide the security that comes with marriage to the woman, or they are married, but the husband refuses to live a lifestyle sustainable by one income, and sees what are in reality “wants” as “needs” and pushes his wife to “work” as if being a stay at home mother was not work.
As far as men and women being different and nobody claiming otherwise, in previous conversations on CAF, Severus has told me that the only differences between men and women are purely biological.
Along with contradicting simple every day human experience, that position also appears to be at odds with the mind of the Church. From a letter to bishops written by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Bl. John Paul II:
Note the letter points out the same two errors I did:
- making men and women adversaries.
- supposing men and women are the same.
L
lerapt78
Guest
I agree with this statement 100%, and thank you for specifying modern feminism versus the original movement. All too often “feminism” is used as a blanket term and this irks me no end.
Ladies, please keep in mind that men are often more direct in their manner of speaking and don’t always consider beforehand that their messages may come across as being overly authoritative. To be fair to Portrait, I’ve come to the conclusion from my own research that much (not all) of what he says is true, at least regarding the mechanisms and hidden goals of radical feminism. There may have been a small percentage of women (and men) in that group that had only noble intentions and idealistic notions of equality for both sexes, however the predominant and underlying aspiration beneath it all was the breakdown of the nuclear family, even if many of the people who took up its banner were not aware of it. The way to do this is to make men and women resent each other and get the women out of the house. The addition of an entire new class of citizens who could then be taxed was a secondary benefit. This is evidenced by the communist roots of the early leaders and the influence of the Frankfurt school of thought. I would urge people to please research this if they think the accusation is simply misogynistic nonsense, as I once would have.
The importance of recognizing the hidden malignancy of radical feminism (underneath its sugarcoating of counter-culture ideas) is so that we can use good judgment to keep that which we think is right and discard what is harmful. Many of us fail to acknowledge the harm, hence the discord. Radical feminists often derided SAHMs, sneered at women who thought that motherhood *was *a job, and looked down on domestic efforts as less important than those of men. And because they had a loud voice they influenced many young women into thinking that devoting themselves to the home and family meant they were worthless. Hence, the anti-family vibe displayed by some women.
I’m agreeing with Portrait’s mention of radical feminism as it applies to the OP’s question. It is *partly *responsible for an anti-family vibe. I may disagree that feminism is to blame for other problems he sees, and my agreement in no way is to be interpreted as a desire to restrict women as it pertains to work as I do not agree it is sinful. I guess I’ll have to address this topic in another post, as I have mixed feelings on the subject (I can understand both points of view).
The men here may disagree, but I think this is definitely part of it.
IMO, the ego dominates the male more than it does the female, and this is why I never understood the stereotype that women are more “emotional” and men are more “logical”. In some situations yes, but in others….definitely no.I too think that domination, rather than cooperation, is an instinctive reaction of most men whenever they feel threatened or confronted, and Gentlemen…*this *is precisely why women go on high alert when they read posts like this. They are wary with good reason sometimes!
I’m running along for now…I think I’m going to get blasted by both camps here :frighten::stretcher:
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Lerapt78,
That was a very good post. I think you pretty much nailed several things at once.
Your point on ego is a very important one, and if I may elaborate a bit on it…
Many women get flustered/annoyed/resentful/angry/etc if they think they are in anyway thought of as “the weaker sex.” As Alice Von Hildebrand points out in her book The Privelege of Being a Woman (which I highly recommend for both men and women), the very weakness of women is one of their greatest strengths. Stay with me (and Mrs. Von Hildebrand)…
Why are there more men than women in prison?
Because there are more women than men in Church.
And why are there more women then men in Church?
Because women are more conscious of their weakness. They more naturally recognize their need for God. Not that men don’t need God as much, hardly, but men often times because of the ego Lerapt78 refers to, think they can do everything on their own and don’t need God’s help.
Does this mean men aren’t as good as women? I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the ego of men serves a positive function in addition to presenting a dangerous weakness, just as the insecurity of women both helps and harms them.
A man’s ego can pose an obstacle to asking for help both from other people and from God.
A woman’s insecurity can drag her into despair.
A man’s ego can give a woman confidence in their ability to overcome difficulties.
A woman’s insecurity can help a man realize his own need for human and divine help.
Or in other words, when my wife thinks something simply can’t be done, I often give her confidence. And when I think I can do anything, my wife often gives me a reality check.
Funny how men and women function as helpmates for each other. It’s almost like they were made for that purpose.
Pax
That was a very good post. I think you pretty much nailed several things at once.
Your point on ego is a very important one, and if I may elaborate a bit on it…
Many women get flustered/annoyed/resentful/angry/etc if they think they are in anyway thought of as “the weaker sex.” As Alice Von Hildebrand points out in her book The Privelege of Being a Woman (which I highly recommend for both men and women), the very weakness of women is one of their greatest strengths. Stay with me (and Mrs. Von Hildebrand)…
Why are there more men than women in prison?
Because there are more women than men in Church.
And why are there more women then men in Church?
Because women are more conscious of their weakness. They more naturally recognize their need for God. Not that men don’t need God as much, hardly, but men often times because of the ego Lerapt78 refers to, think they can do everything on their own and don’t need God’s help.
Does this mean men aren’t as good as women? I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the ego of men serves a positive function in addition to presenting a dangerous weakness, just as the insecurity of women both helps and harms them.
A man’s ego can pose an obstacle to asking for help both from other people and from God.
A woman’s insecurity can drag her into despair.
A man’s ego can give a woman confidence in their ability to overcome difficulties.
A woman’s insecurity can help a man realize his own need for human and divine help.
Or in other words, when my wife thinks something simply can’t be done, I often give her confidence. And when I think I can do anything, my wife often gives me a reality check.
Funny how men and women function as helpmates for each other. It’s almost like they were made for that purpose.
I am of course speaking in generalities. Some men are very insecure. Some women are egotistical. We all need lots of help from each other and from our Creator.
Pax
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Here is John Paul II speaking on the different but complientary nature of men and women in Mulieris Dignitatem:
And here’s Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
Pax Christi
Note the warning to women not to try and take on masculine characteristics. This again points to the differences, which are good when properly understood and lived out in a Catholic manner that respects the dignity of both men and women.
And here’s Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
and here’s Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum:
One of the benefits of reading what “old” Popes and “old” Catechisms say, is that you find they say essentially the same thing as “new” Popes and “new” Catechisms in a complimentary way. That’s because Christ didn’t found one Church that died out in the 1500s or the 1800s or the 1900s and another that we have today. He established ONE Church for all time.
Pax Christi
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
We often have a problem with the words “subjection” and “obedience”. I think it’s becasue modern society has fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of authority. When we think obedience makes us somehow lesser beings, we miss the point that obedience to* lawful* authority is one of the greatest virtues.
Pax
The 2nd Person of the Trinity humbled Himself and became Flesh and subjected Himself to the authority of a mere man and woman, St. Joseph and Our Lady.
Pax
L
lerapt78
Guest
I think that makes a heck of a lot of sense.^^^^^^Lerapt78,
That was a very good post. I think you pretty much nailed several things at once.
Your point on ego is a very important one, and if I may elaborate a bit on it…
Many women get flustered/annoyed/resentful/angry/etc if they think they are in anyway thought of as “the weaker sex.” As Alice Von Hildebrand points out in her book The Privelege of Being a Woman (which I highly recommend for both men and women), the very weakness of women is one of their greatest strengths. Stay with me (and Mrs. Von Hildebrand)…
Why are there more men than women in prison?
Because there are more women than men in Church.
And why are there more women then men in Church?
Because women are more conscious of their weakness. They more naturally recognize their need for God. Not that men don’t need God as much, hardly, but men often times because of the ego Lerapt78 refers to, think they can do everything on their own and don’t need God’s help.
Does this mean men aren’t as good as women? I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the ego of men serves a positive function in addition to presenting a dangerous weakness, just as the insecurity of women both helps and harms them.
A man’s ego can pose an obstacle to asking for help both from other people and from God.
A woman’s insecurity can drag her into despair.
A man’s ego can give a woman confidence in their ability to overcome difficulties.
A woman’s insecurity can help a man realize his own need for human and divine help.
Or in other words, when my wife thinks something simply can’t be done, I often give her confidence. And when I think I can do anything, my wife often gives me a reality check.
Funny how men and women function as helpmates for each other. It’s almost like they were made for that purpose.
I am of course speaking in generalities. Some men are very insecure. Some women are egotistical. We all need lots of help from each other and from our Creator.
Pax
I’d like to touch upon some of these points, and perhaps elaborate on the reactions I feel (and concerns that may lead to knee-jerk reactions) to your subsequent post, but I’m a little too tired to formulate a cohesive reply right now. I need to get off here and get some sleep - easier said than done!
H
horselvr
Guest
" In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”."
“He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”.
In what way would or could a woman lose her “feminine originality”. Whatever this means.
And what is meant by in the name of liberation from male domination women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine originality?
Why would liberation make a woman masculine?? What am I not understanding here. Thanks for any assistance by way of explaination.
In an effort to really understand the male thinking on the above, could one of you guys explain this to me please?
“He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”.
In what way would or could a woman lose her “feminine originality”. Whatever this means.
And what is meant by in the name of liberation from male domination women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine originality?
Why would liberation make a woman masculine?? What am I not understanding here. Thanks for any assistance by way of explaination.
In an effort to really understand the male thinking on the above, could one of you guys explain this to me please?
D
Debora123
Guest
Ah, I see I see.
D
Debora123
Guest
Good advice. I’m out.Btw, the Catechism of the council of trent was not meant for the laity. If you are looking for an answer to a current issue and you want to refrence the Catechism than you should refrence a current one. I asked my very orthodox deacon friend about this and he said if you are debating someone and they refrence the Catechism from the 1500s you should probably stop talking to them. He is one of the most diplomatic non-reactive people I know. I guess I’m a slow learner
Good luck LUCY!!
L
LucyLight
Guest
Yup I’m out as well. I have already explained my position at length with some of these posters on other threads and a lot of these conversations are just a continuation of that. I am not willing to keep repeating myself and offering the same citations over and over. In Spiration, if you think my responses are short and baseless you have not been reading this thread or any of the others where I have explained my positions at length with these same posters. I’ve tried to be agreeable here but if a poster continues to put words in mouth and argue against things I never argued for its a waist of time. I could keep going here but so much of it does not deserve a response. I apologize to anyone if my words were offensive.Good advice. I’m out.
Good luck LUCY!!
N
NightHawk2005
Guest
What makes you happy doesn’t make everyone happy. Some people want the life you have. Others do not. Personally, my mindset is the opposite of yours. I can’t see why anyone would want the frustration, costs and difficulty that come with having children.
I would rather spend that time and money experiencing and sharing life with the wonderful woman I will eventually marry. She gives me all the joy, love and happiness I need. Having a child would only subtract from that happiness for me. Two is enough.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I read that passage and come away with:
Women don’t need to be men. They need to be women.
Men don’t need to be women. They need to men.
Trying to be something your not only leads to problems.
One particular example of a how a woman might try appropriating male charecteristics to themselves in contrast to their own feminine originality would be a woman who wants to be a provider and in order advance in a career path gives up motherhood through contraception or abortion.
Pax
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
But marriage is not defined by each individual. It’s defined by God who created it. Procreation is the primary purpose of the marital act. As a priest put it to me today, married couples need to embrace both the cross and the ressurection of their marriage. That’s how they sanctify each other. Marriage involve sacrifice and yes suffering as well.
Of course marriage isn’t for everyone and there are other states of life that God calls people to which don’t involve sexual relations or children.
Pax Christi
L
lerapt78
Guest
Dan - either we live in different time zones or you’re a night owl like me. It’s 4am my time
I would add a few other examples of how some women attempt to acquire masculine traits because they think it will garner them respect from men:
- They curse liberally (though I think we could *all *refrain from that)
- They argue a point in a confrontational manner, as opposed to a docile manner (it doesn’t mean that women can’t argue - just that there is a graceful way of doing it we should strive for)
- They guzzle alcohol because they think they have to “keep up” drinks-wise, or they think a man will be impressed at how many ounces of beer they can put away in one sitting (women can drink alcohol, but nothing wrong with sipping and drinking in moderation)
- They belch in public (yes, I’ve seen many women do this). I view this as more masculine because women have traditionally been more reserved with regards to bodily functions.
- They say that they will “kick someone’s a**” when angry because they think that men only respect brute strength and physical domination. (I think men *do *respect it in other men, but in women they find it to be unladylike)
- They boast about how they don’t cook, and often sneer at domestic arts, because they think that since men usually aren’t interested in these things, they will be able to relate to them better.
- Status