Why does our society show no respect for women, from either side?

[pianistclare]

I took all the time I needed with my last girlfriend. She was raised Catholic in the same way I was. We didn’t share all the same interests, but she was intelligent and acted like a real lady. When I was with her, it was if something in my head was activated. I knew all the right things to say, what to do, etc. I brought her flowers once and she was almost trembling. She carried herself like a woman. She walked like she had a book on her head. She was poised and confident. She and I were like peas in a pod. It got to the point where we could just look at each other to convey our thoughts. Yes, she had her flaws, but she was cultured and avoided certain things out of her love for God.

And it was all natural - second nature to her. She never put on airs. I thought for a short time that she might not like something about me but I could also tell she wanted my company. We even played chess one evening.

For some women, she was their worst nightmare. A lady. A real lady. I found someone where I could be the gentleman I was raised to be. I thank God for her.

Ed

Beautiful post. But you’ve hit on something: You were both raised to be something good in the world, with dignity. Young people today act like they’ve been raised by wolves. Or the television at least. No boundaries, just self satisfaction…forget the rights or dignity of others. It’s just me me me.

 

[edwest2]

Beautiful post. But you’ve hit on something: You were both raised to be something good in the world, with dignity. Young people today act like they’ve been raised by wolves. Or the television at least. No boundaries, just self satisfaction…forget the rights or dignity of others. It’s just me me me.

When “me” becomes the center of reality, others are “useful” to some degree. “No rules, just right.” The tag line for a restaurant chain. Or, “Too much is never enough.” That by the great philosopher, Mick Jagger.

Restraint? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha… and so on. Imagine passive people letting in garbage through their eyes and ears with the only filter being what other people do to guide “their” choices. And boundaries? “It is forbidden to forbid.”

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

Source: The Practical Catholic

Ed

 

[DarkLight]

I don’t quite understand the vicious attack and smear against religious men. It is a non-sequitur because if a man is truly religious, he will not be going around judging women, but he will be following the words of Jesus: Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” A religious man reads and accepts the holy word of God. Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with a religious man who prefers a woman who dresses modestly and conservatively. And I do not equate such a person with a lewd man.

That’s not the type of religious man we’re talking about. We’re talking about a religious man (or woman, honestly - I see this sort of behavior honestly more from women) who hears that a woman has been assaulted, and immediately starts judging her behavior and questioning how she might have led the man on or what she did to bring it onto herself. Or who tells women if they’d just cover themselves up they wouldn’t be bothered by catcalls and lewd approaches.

Sure, it’s hardly Christ-like behavior. But there’s plenty of religious people out there who do all kinds of things that aren’t Christ-like.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Beautiful post. But you’ve hit on something: You were both raised to be something good in the world, with dignity. Young people today act like they’ve been raised by wolves. Or the television at least. No boundaries, just self satisfaction…forget the rights or dignity of others. It’s just me me me.

That’s what every older generation says of their successors. I’m relatively young (21), and I think that the majority of my generation - like that of my parents and grandparents - are decent people. There are distasteful cultural attitudes present in each (my mom make a cringe-worthy racial remark every now and again), but to characterize an entire group of people as hedonistic, uncouth, and uncaring toward others is wrong. Racism was a prevailing cultural attitude in my grandparents generation, but that in no way indicates that every member of that generation was a racist - far from it.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

"given the freedom to fulfill their potential’? Could you provide a few recent examples of where that freedom is being denied?

Ed

I was talking about good old days, where a woman couldn’t be more than a secretary but it was okay because men tipped their hats to her in the street.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I don’t quite understand the vicious attack and smear against religious men. It is a non-sequitur because if a man is truly religious, he will not be going around judging women, but he will be following the words of Jesus: Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” A religious man reads and accepts the holy word of God. Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with a religious man who prefers a woman who dresses modestly and conservatively. And I do not equate such a person with a lewd man.

One can be religious without being holy. I know quite a few guys like that at my (Catholic) college. A former friend told me that a woman is subordinate to her man because the man acts as a buffer between her and Satan (not paraphrasing), and that men and women can’t be in the same Bible study because women argue too much. He asked me out several months later, and was confused when I said no.

A lot of young Catholic guys I know support an attitude that feminism - not rape, not domestic abuse, not sexism, not the Fall in the Garden - is the worst thing that ever happened to women (or rather, their ideal of the meek, subservient, unambitious woman who will double as a maid and sex dispenser).

 

[Tomdstone]

I took all the time I needed with my last girlfriend. She was raised Catholic in the same way I was. We didn’t share all the same interests, but she was intelligent and acted like a real lady. When I was with her, it was if something in my head was activated. I knew all the right things to say, what to do, etc. I brought her flowers once and she was almost trembling. She carried herself like a woman. She walked like she had a book on her head. She was poised and confident. She and I were like peas in a pod. It got to the point where we could just look at each other to convey our thoughts. Yes, she had her flaws, but she was cultured and avoided certain things out of her love for God.

And it was all natural - second nature to her. She never put on airs. I thought for a short time that she might not like something about me but I could also tell she wanted my company. We even played chess one evening.

For some women, she was their worst nightmare. A lady. A real lady. I found someone where I could be the gentleman I was raised to be. I thank God for her.

Ed

That’s really great Ed. Congratulations and best wishes to you both !!

 

[phil19034]

I have heard these kind of things said to my face from actual practicing Christians, including a (protestant) pastor. In fact I’ve seen them in actual real life as being a pretty common belief, at least the one that if a woman is modestly dressed she won’t be harassed.

This is Catholic Answers, we cannot really talk about what Protestant Pastors do.

I personally, believe that SOCIETY has promoted immodest dress among women in modern times, but SOCIETY also did that in ancient pagan societies too.

The reason why you don’t hear too much about mail immodesty is because it doesn’t happen in the work place, and rarely happens in public.

However today’s society teaches women today (like it did in ancient pagan societies) to be sexy. However, here is a HUGE difference between being sexy vs being beautiful.

However, there is a HUGE difference between discussing the issues with society vs judging individuals, which we should not do.

I pray I’m making sense

 

[phil19034]

One can be religious without being holy. I know quite a few guys like that at my (Catholic) college. A former friend told me that a woman is subordinate to her man because the man acts as a buffer between her and Satan (not paraphrasing), and that men and women can’t be in the same Bible study because women argue too much. He asked me out several months later, and was confused when I said no.

A lot of young Catholic guys I know support an attitude that feminism - not rape, not domestic abuse, not sexism, not the Fall in the Garden - is the worst thing that ever happened to women (or rather, their ideal of the meek, subservient, unambitious woman who will double as a maid and sex dispenser).

Regarding paragraph 1, “subordinate” in the Biblical / Catholic sense of the word is NOT the same as the secular / everyday usage of the word. Women are “subordinate” to men because a REAL man is supposed to be willing to die to protect his wife and family if/when needed.

Regarding paragraph 2, when discussing the “feminism,” you need to make sure you are comparing apples with apples. Men (and some women) simply consider “feminism” to be what many women would call “radical feminism.”

The idea (which I have heard from some women) that any woman who makes the decision to stay home to raise her children is stupid, etc is WRONG. My wife (who is not Catholic) left her career in teaching because she wanted to excel at being a mother and didn’t want our kids going to day care. I didn’t make her do anytime, I actually tried to talk her into keeping her job at one point.

But there are some women who say my wife (who grew up on Long Island, NY) is “backwatered” for leaving her career. That’s wrong.

This radical feminism is bad for women.

Feminism is not a movement for equal rights. Equal rights is just that, caring equally about all people. But true feminism is about special rights and/or advocacy just for girls and women.

Btw - Feminism is the is the opposing of masculism / masculinism. Why is it ok to be a feminist but wrong to be a masculinist?

Furthermore, why do we continue to preach that girls can do anything they want in education, while ignoring the boys who are now outnumberd in college? Why isn’t out message equal to both?

Food for thought.

God bless.

 

[Naskor]

There is a lot of wisdom in your posts Tomdstone!

 

[phil19034]

That’s what every older generation says of their successors. I’m relatively young (21), and I think that the majority of my generation - like that of my parents and grandparents - are decent people. There are distasteful cultural attitudes present in each (my mom make a cringe-worthy racial remark every now and again), but to characterize an entire group of people as hedonistic, uncouth, and uncaring toward others is wrong. Racism was a prevailing cultural attitude in my grandparents generation, but that in no way indicates that every member of that generation was a racist - far from it.

I’m 39, and once thought like you. Please let us know what you think once you’ve been working in the work place for a few years.

I found that once I was over a few years out of college (approx 25) , I had far more in common with 45 year olds than I did with college kids. Then, once I had kids, my attitudes changed even more.

I always see a MAJOR difference between my sister’s age group and mine (she’s 8 years younger than me). The truth is that the cell phone alone has created a sharp difference between people who grew up (at least high school) with cell phone vs though who didn’t get a cell phone until they were adults (post college).

 

[ATraveller]

I have heard these kind of things said to my face from actual practicing Christians, including a (protestant) pastor. In fact I’ve seen them in actual real life as being a pretty common belief, at least the one that if a woman is modestly dressed she won’t be harassed.

Many people still believe it’s not a crime of opportunity when it is.
A possible contributing and/or reinforcing factor to this common belief is that some Christians have low expectations of ‘Christians in Name’ and non-Christians on this matter i.e. true Christians exhibit self-control, keep their minds pure, etc. but others don’t. I’m not sure how true this is as I haven’t come across anything on this from experts.

 

[ThePCWife]

I was talking about good old days, where a woman couldn’t be more than a secretary but it was okay because men tipped their hats to her in the street.

You’re 21. You have plenty of time to read historical documents revealing that this is a total lie and then get back to us all.

Any serious historical research will reveal that your statement is fallacious and misleading, at best.

 

[phil19034]

I’m talking less about that kind of thing and more about literally being directly told “women shouldn’t complain about harassment because if they wouldn’t dress so provocatively they’d be left alone,” or complaining about a guy saying crude things to you and immediately being questioned on what you were wearing that day. Or being told you shouldn’t have been alone in the room with your boyfriend, who you presumably knew and trusted, because you “should know what men are like.”

This is actually similar to what 1ke was talking about.

When a girl/women dresses provocatively, she draws attention to herself. Unfortunately, she also draws attention from BAD men. Not all bad men rape, kill, etc. Some bad guys are “nice” when you first meet them.

While we shouldn’t “judge a book by its cover,” we ALL do it. If a women dresses like a tramp, then she’s going to attract men who are looking a tramp.

If she dresses like a “choir girl,” then she’s going to attract men who are looking for “choir girls”

Also, think of it like this, how many girls/women prefer the “bad boy”? My sister-in-law is a 41 year old doctor who is single. She’s always depressed that she’s alone, and when she does start dating someone gets hurt because she agrees to go out with players (the last one being a 50 year old player who dressed and acted like he was 24). But the few times she had nice male friends who were interested in her, she kept them in the “friend zone” and wasn’t interested by they were “too nice.”

Point is… Our body language and what we were (both men and women) send out signals. If we are not conscience of what those signals are, we could send the wrong message or attract the wrong people.

Point is - that is the real reason you are hearing people say what they say.

God Bless

 

[ATraveller]

Furthermore, why do we continue to preach that girls can do anything they want in education, while ignoring the boys who are now outnumberd in college? Why isn’t out message equal to both?

Moderation is something people fail at. They think a balance can be struck by going to the other extreme. The problem is like a listing ship where everyone is on one side and they think it can be fixed by having* everyone *move to the other side rather than moving to the centre.

 

[phil19034]

Moderation is something people fail at. They think a balance can be struck by going to the other extreme. The problem is like a listing ship where everyone is on one side and they think it can be fixed by having* everyone *move to the other side rather than moving to the centre.

Bingo

 

[ConfusedLucy]

I disagree. IMHO, a religious man who prefers a woman who dresses modestly and conservatively is not exactly the same as a lewd man.

It comes from the same place, the idea that it’s the woman’s responsibility to manage the mans expectations, if you dress like a slut you’d better act like one and if you don’t well what did you expect.

I’d also agree that a lot of olden day respect was very conditional on how deserving the woman seemed rather than respect because of her human dignity.

 

[Walking_Home]

DarkLight:

I have heard these kind of things said to my face from actual practicing Christians, including a (protestant) pastor. In fact I’ve seen them in actual real life as being a pretty common belief, at least the one that if a woman is modestly dressed she won’t be harassed.

They may have thought they were “practicing Christians”,** but they don’t sound very Christian or “Christ-like” to me**.

---

No – they don’t sound Christ-like at all.

 

[Estevao]

Look at it in a Chestertonian way. The seculars AND the christians have lost the notion of chivalry, not the cheap knock off you see in old movies, but the actual historical reality of how the sexes related in the time of Christendom, which was based upon Ephesians 5. Chivalry is Ephesians 5 played out in society. As Christ inverted the divine order to redeem the natural order, so men made the natural order reflect this inverted divine order, and began to defer to women as of a higher rank.

From this came true women’s lib, where women were free to follow the good (God). This is the real meaning of freedom, being free to do what you must, not to do what you want (the modern false freedom which is actually licence). So women could enjoy a family life, which of course already existed but was now tempered by chivalry and the gospel, and women were encouraged to fashion little souls to raise up to the glory of heaven. But they also found another true freedom which they never had before and which they no longer have for the most part and that is the freedom under God found as consecrated virgins and widows. Thus women were freed from the pagan obligation to be subject to a husband at a young age so they could work for the glory of God. From all this came the growth of innumerable convents all over medieval Christendom led by women like St. Clair and St. Bridget of Sweden and the construction of churches more often dedicated to women than to men, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Because the seculars reject the divine order, they fall back to the pagan, unredeemed natural order but without the grace to resist its fallen tendencies. This is where you get your first point, OP. Because the modern christians (i.e. protestants and their intellectual hiers) reject the natural order, or at least the idea that the natural order is divinely fashioned, and they get lost playing God, which their limited intellects could never do, especially as regards the mystery of him being supremely just and supremely merciful. So they either imagine God as pure justice like the fundamentalists, who often rashly judge women for how they dress or for “deserving” rape for how they dress (something which I never saw St. Augustine do when discussing women who had been raped in the City of God), or they imagine Him as pure mercy, with no reference to justice or sin, and so they will often deride traditional sexual morality or they even deride the Mother of God’s role in the plan of salvation.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

I’m 39, and once thought like you. Please let us know what you think once you’ve been working in the work place for a few years.

I found that once I was over a few years out of college (approx 25) , I had far more in common with 45 year olds than I did with college kids. Then, once I had kids, my attitudes changed even more.

I always see a MAJOR difference between my sister’s age group and mine (she’s 8 years younger than me). The truth is that the cell phone alone has created a sharp difference between people who grew up (at least high school) with cell phone vs though who didn’t get a cell phone until they were adults (post college).

I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey. What is being in the workforce supposed to show me?

I didn’t get my first smartphone till a week and a half ago, yet I’ve always been able to relate fine with people who had it attached at the hip. I was also homeschooled, grew up in a conservative household, worked in several paying jobs and volunteered extensively throughout high school. Basically, I’ve lived most of my life in a bubble separate from that of the middle-American teen/young adult, and I still think the vices some of the CAFers are ascribing to my generation are unfounded. People who lived though the Civil War probably thought their grandkids were bums for listening to the radio and going out dancing. It’s not that the grandkids were morally inferior; just that the grandparents felt out of place and didn’t want/know how to adapt to the changing culture.