Where did the anti-family vibe come from?

[CountrySinger]

I think it’s funny how a couple posters here are entirely blaming women for the “fall” of the family. That in itself is ironically sexist.

But doncha know, men are pure virtue, and women are the evil force. If a man does something bad, it is a woman’s fault. Don’t like it? Too bad. You were born with a evil vagina. . Now be quiet and don’t work, and get married, so you aren’t evil. Is the guy a good match? Doesn’t matter, just get married! And don’t you dare think. Thinking causes wrinkles. And then the man will leave, and it will be your fault. And then you are hell-bound.



Thankfully, my husband doesn’t believe it.

 

[Debora123]

But doncha know, men are pure virtue, and women are the evil force. If a man does something bad, it is a woman’s fault. Don’t like it? Too bad. You were born with a evil vagina. . Now be quiet and don’t work, and get married, so you aren’t evil. Is the guy a good match? Doesn’t matter, just get married! And don’t you dare think. Thinking causes wrinkles. And then the man will leave, and it will be your fault. And then you are hell-bound.



Thankfully, my husband doesn’t believe it.

My husband keeps me locked up good and tight so that I don’t go off and get any crazy ideas… such as go to college to get an education or something.

 

[CountrySinger]

My husband keeps me locked up good and tight so that I don’t go off and get any crazy ideas… such as go to college to get an education or something.

At least you have internet access.

I have a college education! I am doomed! I might as well do something bad, like going to work.

 

[AthenaC]

My husband keeps me locked up good and tight so that I don’t go off and get any crazy ideas… such as go to college to get an education or something.

But hopefully not TOO tightly because that would be BDSM, which we all know is always evil because married couples have zero discretion with regard to their marital embrace.

P.S. Too soon? I’m sorry. I just couldn’t resist. I certainly don’t want another thread to get closed.

 

[AthenaC]

At least you have internet access.

I have a college education! I am doomed! I might as well do something bad, like going to work.

Yes, you are forever tainted and no “good” man will ever want you. May as well give yourself up to despair.

 

[CountrySinger]

Yes, you are forever tainted and no “good” man will ever want you. May as well give yourself up to despair.

But I managed to get myself a Catholic husband, I must have used evil to get him. He is tainted by my evilness.

 

[AthenaC]

But I managed to get myself a Catholic husband, I must have used evil to get him. He is tainted by my evilness.

On the contrary, what that indicates is that your husband is not really a “good” man. Because no “good” man would want you, therefore there must be something horribly wrong with the man that does want you.

P.S. I am (hopefully) obviously joking, but I have seriously encountered this attitude before with regard to my and my husband.

 

[Debora123]

But hopefully not TOO tightly because that would be BDSM, which we all know is always evil because married couples have zero discretion with regard to their marital embrace.

 

[edwest2]

The radical feminism that appeared in the 1970s turned men and women into adversaries. For those women who truly believe that a man, any man, will use and abuse them, then stay single. Simple. But don’t live your life in fear.

The 1950s and 1960s were not perfect. No time period in the past was. But neighbors were neighbors. Children were taught to say please and thank you, and to refer to our elders as Mister and Missus. In my Catholic school, our roles were clearly explained. Most of us listened while a few did not.

And I lament the loss of Honor thy Father and thy Mother. That was true and necessary. They are our first role models. Yes, there were abusive parents as well but they were few.

As a commentator on Catholic radio said recently: “We may not return to 1957 overnight, but we’re making progress.”

See for yourself what the National Organization for Women stands for today:

www.now.org/

I lived in a functional Catholic Community in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It worked. Sure, we had a few bad apples, but we didn’t bother those people. We said hello if they passed by. But some have exchanged God for another god and rejected sound doctrine for another, wrong doctrine.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AthenaC]

The radical feminism that appeared in the 1970s turned men and women into adversaries. For those women who truly believe that a man, any man, will use and abuse them, then stay single. Simple. But don’t live your life in fear.

Who’s living life in fear? Is it too much to ask for a society where women are able to fend for themselves the same as a man? The only fear I see is fear that women will be able to take care of themselves and their children and no longer forced to be subject to abusive men.

The 1950s and 1960s were not perfect. No time period in the past was. But neighbors were neighbors. Children were taught to say please and thank you, and to refer to our elders as Mister and Missus.

In my adult life, I have lived in Iowa, Illinois, Texas, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. So I haven’t been everywhere, but I’ve been enough places and observed enough to know that everything you said in this paragraph is still true in 2012. So I don’t know what your point is here.

See for yourself what the National Organization for Women stands for today:

www.now.org/

I am not responsible for them, nor are they emblematic of the great good that feminism has wrought. So I’m not sure what your point is here.

 

[edwest2]

You use the word forced. Where did that come from? Stay single if you believe that. Your other option is to listen to clear Church teaching.

The rotten fruit of the radical feminist movement is being exposed for the lie it was and is.

I watched a documentary on TV about a foreign country. There was a group of four people that had a certain job in the life of the local communities. If a woman was being verbally and emotionally abused, she could go to that group and explain her case. They were respected in their role by all. In the example I watched, they appeared at the door of the home in question. The husband and wife were both there.

They asked if they could come in. After being allowed inside, the husband was asked if he had yelled at his wife and made her feel bad. The husband said it was true. The husband was asked what happened to cause him to behave this way. Then it all came out. He explained that he had a bad day at work with his boss, he was tired and hungry when he got home, and got mad when he saw dinner was not on the table.

His wife explained that she had gone to help a sick neighbor, lost track of the time and so dinner was not ready on time. She told them she tried to explain that to her husband but he remained in a bad mood as if what she said did not help matters. There were a few other, similar incidents, which the husband described.

The group then asked the husband if he thought what he did was wrong. He said yes, and immediately told his wife he was sorry, and told everyone that he would improve his behavior in the future. That he would listen to his wife and treat her better.

Satisfied that they had helped, the group left.

So, in the United States, instead of seeking understanding, admitting our faults and asking for forgiveness, we have been programmed to focus only on the evils done. Instead of seeking and earning trust from another, and developing friendships that were observable by actions, and developing a love for one another based on understanding the real, everyday behavior of the person we wished to marry and what he or she expected from the future if they married - some have chosen to believe the lies. Reject marriage, reject living together and turn true intimacy into “just sex.” I’ll pick a man, use contraception, satisfy myself and I’ll never need to deal with his nonsense, or friends or family. And I will never, ever risk being abused in any way. It’s just a one-time deal.

God forbid,
Ed

 

[EasterJoy]

…For those women who truly believe that a man, any man, will use and abuse them, then stay single. Simple. But don’t live your life in fear…

No. Women who think any man is going to use and abuse them are just as wrong as men who think *all women *are golddiggers who want to marry them just long enough to cast them off and enjoy the alimony payments. That is not just living in fear. That is living in irrational fear.

 

[Baelor]

There was more courtesy and people knew their place and role in society and what was expected of them. Thus men were the breadwinners and women rightly remained at home in the sphere that was proper to them, unless they were single and had to support themeselves.

Please show us the standing Church teaching that states that married women ought to remain at home and that the home is their proper sphere.

Again, dear friend, this is poles apart from a career orientated woman who selfishly chooses that way of life and deliberately shuns marriage, since that gets in the way of her plans.

A woman remains single her whole life and dedicates her life to God by performing in her career ethically and well. Is this morally permissible? May men do this?

The Church does not need to spoon-feed us as regards the natural tasks undertaken by a woman. Do we really need, dear brother, to be instructed after all these centuries as to what are womanly domestic tasks? Only those imbued with feminist ideology would ever stop to ask what these tasks are and then go on to challenge the accepted norm.

Please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges the existence of “natural tasks” undertaken by a woman.

You say that the Church need not spoonfeed us. In that case, please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges moral imperatives not explicitly taught by the Church.

Forgive me, dear friend, but you seem to have an idee fixe about the Church having to teach about what is patently obvious. It surprises me that you think that our Church should have to “mandate” housewives, but perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning and if that is the case I apologise in advance.

Please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges moral imperatives not explicitly taught by the Church. Please show us the standing Church teaching acknowledging that it does not instruct of “obvious” matters because they are self-evident.

‘Househusbands’ are a non-entity, at least in the eyes of God, since they are tacit denial of masculinity and the roles ordered by the divine providence.

Please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges the existence of “roles offered by the divine providence” in the manner you suggest.

 

[Debora123]

Please show us the standing Church teaching that states that married women ought to remain at home and that the home is their proper sphere.

A woman remains single her whole life and dedicates her life to God by performing in her career ethically and well. Is this morally permissible? May men do this?

Please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges the existence of “natural tasks” undertaken by a woman.

You say that the Church need not spoonfeed us. In that case, please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges moral imperatives not explicitly taught by the Church.

Please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges moral imperatives not explicitly taught by the Church. Please show us the standing Church teaching acknowledging that it does not instruct of “obvious” matters because they are self-evident.

Please show us the standing Church teaching that acknowledges the existence of “roles offered by the divine providence” in the manner you suggest.

Baelor,

Some folks just have very extreme views outside of what the Church actually teaches. All that matters is that WE understand what the Church’s stance actually is, and let the others believe as they please.

God bless.

 

[Baelor]

Some folks just have very extreme views outside of what the Church actually teaches. All that matters is that WE understand what the Church’s stance actually is, and let the others believe as they please.

We do indeed. And yet, heterodox views ought to be pointed out and labeled as such.

 

[Debora123]

We do indeed. And yet, heterodox views ought to be pointed out and labeled as such.

Very true, very true.

 

[LucyLight]

Dear LucyLight,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Incontrovertably, radical aberrant feminism has had a profound negative influence upon the thinking of both men and women, more perhaps than many are willing to concede and Catholic women have, alas, not been immune from its godless ideology. The many threads here at CAF surely testify to that fact, dear sister.

Men or women should not deliberately shun marriage to selfishly pursue a career or enjoy a feckless life of gaiety, for that sort of outlook hardly sits comfortable with the whole spirit of Catholicism, which is to marry and raise godly offspring for the next generation.

Married women claiming high career profile for themeselves have only succeeded in eroding their husbands sense of responsibility as breadwinner, as this now tends to be shared in the name of equality. Moreover, unemployment bears heavily upon men and they go to pieces more readily under its weight than women. Naturally, the more current secular feminism persuades women of the superior status and rewards of work outside of the home the more married women will seek it, and this will inevitably have an impact upon men’s opportunities.

What is so very sad, dear sister, is the prevalent aggressive disparagement of the domestic work traditionally undertaken by women within the home. Another tragic legacy of radical feminism. Being a worker at home is very undervalued nowadays and yet is of greater importance than any career, for, as the old adage puts it, ‘The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Okay, two things…

First I’ll give you points for using this phrase,“feckless life of gaiety” My husband is Irish and there is no difference between the words feckless and f*ckless. I have an Irish/English dictionary and it also says they are the same.

I’ll also give you points for your last sentence; “Being a worker at home is very undervalued nowadays and yet is of greater importance than any career, for, as the old adage puts it, ‘The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world’.”

I do disagree with the sentiment that all the problems we have today have been caused by feminists. I also think you could benefit from being more flexible in your view of what men and women should and should not do. I think that you are creating feminists with every post.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Gosh darn those feminists!!! Deciding that they wanted the right to vote and equal pay forced men to regard them as sex objects and cast them aside when they were done. Note that all of the problems of today’s world are being blamed on women, not at all on men who are just as responsible for casual sex and broken families.

My mom married a man in the army just a few months after she graduated high school. He beat her, tormented her, threatened to kill her, and put her in the hospital more than once. With the help of a shelter for battered women (run by women, who I would assume were feminists. This was the evil '70’s after all) she managed to escape and get a divorce. A few months after it was finalized she got her first car on her own. When she went to get it insured they told her they wouldn’t do it, because they don’t insure cars for divorced women because they may use them to run over their ex-husbands.

So yes, I am thankful that the world is different.

 

[edwest2]

Gosh darn those feminists!!! Deciding that they wanted the right to vote and equal pay forced men to regard them as sex objects and cast them aside when they were done. Note that all of the problems of today’s world are being blamed on women, not at all on men who are just as responsible for casual sex and broken families.

My mom married a man in the army just a few months after she graduated high school. He beat her, tormented her, threatened to kill her, and put her in the hospital more than once. With the help of a shelter for battered women (run by women, who I would assume were feminists. This was the evil '70’s after all) she managed to escape and get a divorce. A few months after it was finalized she got her first car on her own. When she went to get it insured they told her they wouldn’t do it, because they don’t insure cars for divorced women because they may use them to run over their ex-husbands.

So yes, I am thankful that the world is different.

It has not been for the better. And to the OP, the vicious, radical feminists were not solution oriented. Men - all men - were branded as evil.

Irrational fear? Yes, they helped with that.

To my fellow Catholics, there is hope:

avemariasingles.com/about_Ave_Maria_Single_Catholics.cfm

And for our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters:

amazon.com/Covenant-Marriage-Building-Communication-Intimacy/dp/0805425764

covenantmarriage.com/couplesupport.php

I’m not blaming all women. I’m blaming those radical few who sought not a solution to real problems but a war. To divide and conquer for the destruction of true love and true intimacy. And the end of the family.

Peace,
Ed

 

[EasterJoy]

It has not been for the better. And to the OP, the vicious, radical feminists were not solution oriented. Men - all men - were branded as evil.

Well, not exactly. Radical feminist men were OK.
They do exist, and they’re not all gay, either.

There was a time when a lot of the people down in Harlem helping the poor were Communist, not Catholic or any other kind of Christian. If you’ve been throwing pennies over an unjust wall to help the downtrodden on the other side, and someone else comes down and knocks the wall down, your efforts are going to look a bit ineffectual and even less credible.

If we leave good that is ours to do for others to do, if we leave justice for others to do, then we can expect that some are going to think even the more extreme ideas of those who do the good meant for us to do are “for the better.” Who do we have to thank for that?

I think that is worth thinking about.