Women/Wives

[jmjZelie]

Wow, that was a confusing time!

Lol. Yes it was. And it get more confusing all the time.

 

[LethalMouse]

True. People will maybe always associate feminists as the group of women who burned their bras. But I honestly don’t care. When I say that I’m a feminist, I believe that women and men deserve equal opportunities to succeed and deserve the same amount of respect. Anything that disagrees with my faith, I won’t fight for. And I’ll be clear about that.

You used the example of the church. And I see your point but I usually think of it as religion in general. A group of us believe in God, but we have many disagreements about doctrines and all. But we are all religious.

It might not make sense to you, because feminist is seen as a singular movement, which sucks. But my point is that not all of them believe in the same things at the end of the day. Not a lot of people are aware of that. And honestly they should.

Not just the association, but there will always be those “bad” feminists. They will use you to gain power and do their will. Same as every group.

I would also note using the catholic examples, since as Catholics we have certain Church teachings that we must follow that make us Catholic. Then there is wiggle room on other issues. So for me for example if I give time/money to a Catholic political group that excersises any of that wiggle room in opposition to who I am within the wiggle, I can give to something that isn’t what I want.

Now I mentioned Steven Colbert earlier, last I knew he was a CCD teacher and considers himself a devout Catholic. He attends mass and seems happily married and faithful… he is also, from my understanding pro abortion, so if you didn’t catch that part and just heard “Steven Colbert’s Catholic Activist Fund” and it may be “catholic” on every other issue… but you would be siding with abortion.

Mist importantly on any movement, is execution. The intended purposeof a law doesn’t mean it is what will happen or that the law won’thave unintendedside effects.

Let’s say I was running for office and I said that my opponent voted to block me from giving out my own personal money to random people as an act of kindness…

My opponent sounds like a jerk?

Then you research my plan was to drop rolls of quarters out of a helicopter in cities… well now my opponent saved lives, not so jerky is he? It is all about execution.

BlueEyed, my lawyer friend, you got to appreciate that? Lol.

 

[LethalMouse]

I am a Gen Xer. Let me just say that between Baby Boomers and GenXers, the idea that feminism was only for outside the house was unheard of. The two options that were presented to me in my youth were either totally obedient or totally emancipated. Of course, depending upon who was speaking, the two options were described in either a horrifying or appealing fashion. So those of us who rejected both as nonsense had zero help figuring out how to have a healthy marriage, especially since most Gen Xers (in my experience) came from broken homes where men hated women and women hated men. I count it as a miracle that my husband and I are approaching 20 years and are happier than ever, especially since neither of our families wanted us to get married in the first place.

Disclaimer: I was not raised Catholic, so I have no idea what Catholic culture was like then.

Much Catholic culture was rooted in the same… but then again how Catholic is it when it isn’t what the Church is teaching?

You hit the nail on the head btw, the only excepted narrative of most people is total one way on an issue. Women as slaves or women as masters. Talking about anything in between is like smashing ones head into a brick wall. I feel this way on many issues, too much all or nothings. And sometimes I feel forced in some things to pick an extremem, because it is better than the other and middle ground is not feasible
(The picking of extremes in general, not on this issue. I refuse to accept either extreme on this issue even if I die lonely lol)

 

[Lea101]

I answered some of your questions in pink above.

Don’t let a friend who isn’t even Catholic tell you how God and the Catholic Church view women. Remember the rest of the teachings!

I didn’t phrase my question properly about the direct connection thing.

Head of wife=husband
Head of husband=Christ

Isn’t this unfair? It’s like Christ is not “directly connected” to the wife (in the chain of command, I mean). And if I’m wrong, then why is there even this teaching (that the head of a wife is her husband while the head of the husband is God) and what does he mean by that?

I know ultimately Christ is head of the wife too. But like…why…? This makes me feel so uncomfortable.

And will someone explain to me about the wife being the heart. It always seemed like a teaching to shut women up to me? Like “yikes the women are mad that men are the head of them, let’s call them the heart”. Yes, I’m being very pessimistic here, I’m a Catholic that is only recently trying to learn as much as I can.

 

[LethalMouse]

I didn’t phrase my question properly about the direct connection thing.

Head of wife=husband
Head of husband=Christ

Isn’t this unfair? It’s like Christ is not “directly connected” to the wife (in the chain of command, I mean). And if I’m wrong, then why is there even this teaching (that the head of a wife is her husband while the head of the husband is God) and what does he mean by that?

I know ultimately Christ is head of the wife too. But like…why…? This makes me feel so uncomfortable.

And will someone explain to me about the wife being the heart. It always seemed like a teaching to shut women up to me? Like “yikes the women are mad that men are the head of them, let’s call them the heart”. Yes, I’m being very pessimistic here, I’m a Catholic that is only recently trying to learn as much as I can.

From a purely theological standpoint… doesn’tGod trump our personal issues with something. I remember some stuff about following ones consciencein opposition to God being bad.

God told Abraham to kill Isaac… granted God didn’tlet him, but I would think this story from the purely God angle supercedes earthly constructs of our minds.

I had to edit this, due to your mention of your young age and my mild grasp on psychology and a protective nature… my wording on this is in direct to the overarching “I” “me” and I dont likes that I hear on these and your specific attempt to figure out God’sbreakdown of how he wants that family unit.

But I will note that if attention is paid this is NOT blind submission to the wims of another and you should seek to grasp the Catechismon the subject and the enumeral ways in which submission is NOT a thing to do. Dont go letting some jerk be a jerk, just dont be a shrew either

 

[LethalMouse]

I felt the OP question that started this thread was much in the sense of “what the religion says SHOULD happen” and not an earthly question of what COULD happen if everyone involved isn’t listening to God. Considering if we all listen to him there would be like no murders, STDs, rapes, etc…

But I mentally was on the keel of addressing people on a certain level and people like many who I have back and forth with ie: married and older women.

When I thought of how a younger inexperienced person might take something I felt the need to expand into the what if’s when I said sonething that could be taken wrong. So while to some of you women I think you have a bit too much prejudice, I admit that I got worried about the same thing ugh if only everyone did everything right…

 

[Xantippe]

Developing countries are a mixture of the old fashioned and the new, with in most cases the man working outside the home for some dictator or some faceless company from a developed country. Due to years of oppression and strife the cultures are wrought with all kinds of negative. I would put minimal stock into how they do things.

Thousands of years ago some people figured out how to dig canals and make aqueducts long before we as a species were “modern” the mental state of these nations are barely up to ancient egypt in the times of moses, I don’t much ascribe to them as the epitome of the past.

I haven’t caught up with the thread, so apologies in advance!

It is actually pretty clear even just from the Bible that water-fetching was a woman’s task. See, for example, the story of Rebekah at the well in Genesis 24:

"12 And he [Abraham’s servant] said, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham, grant me success today, I pray thee, and show steadfast love to my master Abraham. 13 Behold, I am standing by the spring of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water. 14 Let the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Pray let down your jar that I may drink,’ and who shall say, ‘Drink, and I will water your camels’—let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac. By this I shall know that thou hast shown steadfast love to my master.”

15 Before he had done speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethu′el the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder."

Likewise, the person who comes to the well with a jar in John 4 is also a woman.

It’s not really that controversial a point that in many ancient and traditional societies, women are the haulers of water. If men were the traditional haulers of water, there’d be no point in Abraham’s servant going to the well to try to find a woman.

Also, needless to say, catastrophic childbirth is not purely a feature of modern life.

I really think you need to walk back your idea that women have traditionally been shielded from hardship. You said: “The general theory was the woman was led in a sense by the person who got the most suck, the man was a shield to absorb all the suck for the woman.”

I think that that view is not well substantiated.

 

[LethalMouse]

I haven’t caught up with the thread, so apologies in advance!

It is actually pretty clear even just from the Bible that water-fetching was a woman’s task. See, for example, the story of Rebekah at the well in Genesis 24:

"12 And he [Abraham’s servant] said, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham, grant me success today, I pray thee, and show steadfast love to my master Abraham. 13 Behold, I am standing by the spring of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water. 14 Let the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Pray let down your jar that I may drink,’ and who shall say, ‘Drink, and I will water your camels’—let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac. By this I shall know that thou hast shown steadfast love to my master.”

15 Before he had done speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethu′el the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder."

Likewise, the person who comes to the well with a jar in John 4 is also a woman.

It’s not really that controversial a point that in many ancient and traditional societies, women are the haulers of water. If men were the traditional haulers of water, there’d be no point in Abraham’s servant going to the well to try to find a woman.

Also, needless to say, catastrophic childbirth is not purely a feature of modern life.

I really think you need to walk back your idea that women have traditionally been shielded from hardship. You said: “The general theory was the woman was led in a sense by the person who got the most suck, the man was a shield to absorb all the suck for the woman.”

I think that that view is not well substantiated.

I also said “most suck” not “all suck” the idea that any wrong or hardship negates others is a logical fallacy I have never understood. Carrying a heavy jug of water must have been far harder than plowing the fields.

And dont worry men and women are almost all one homogenous metro species anyway, give it 50 yrs and we will all be trans and no worries. God clearly was wrong and activists are clearly right.

 

[Xantippe]

We also see people saying that if the husband loves the wife deeply, he wouldn’t make her unhappy. Not necessarily true.

I think he could do it accidentally, without meaning for it to happen.

Here’s another post by my gal at iprefercaptain:

iprefercaptain.com/2014/09/john-piper-and-complementarian-figure-skating/

Some quotes:

“One of Piper’s favorite analogies is figure skating. [Read Piper’s “Olympic Lessons for Husbands and Wives.”] Those beautiful, skillful figure skating pairs don’t jostle about, trying to decide who the leader is, Piper says. They practice, learn their roles, trust each other, and then produce something that’s beautiful for the whole world to see.”

“I’ve got to wonder, has Piper, (or any of my complementarian friends) ever seen what happens when a figure skater drops his partner?”

“John Piper uses a complicated, intricate, deadly sport, which takes thousands of hours of practice in order to master, to show us that leadership and submission shouldn’t be dependent upon competencies.”

“It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t make sense.”

“Another objection is, “You’re showing extreme examples here. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of figure skating pairs that happen without accidents.” Yes, but these pairs have practiced for thousands upon thousands of hours. You’re asking me, as a married woman, to engage in figure skating with a man, regardless of whether or not he has proven himself competent to do so. You say the scripture tells me to do this. I say no, it doesn’t. I have been dropped enough times, and broken enough bones, to say out loud, “I’m not going to submit to any human being, in any area of life, who hasn’t proved by his actions that he is a trustworthy authority in this area.””

 

[Xantippe]

To me, a marital respect is very different than a friendly, or even “societal” respect. Yes, I respect my friends and even people who aren’t my friends, in simple ways like obeying personal boundaries, paying attention while driving, etc. Marital respect includes those things, but also adds to the equation that what you do should take into account the needs and well being of your spouse. There is some element of that in a friendship, as well, but the extent to which is should be taken with your spouse is much more than with a friend, and with a friend much more than what it should be with some random person. Part of it is how well you know the person, but a big part of it is the marital commitment. That concept should be fairly simple to convey, with or without religion.

Right.

I have to add here that I think some people have really gone off the rails in believing that love and respect are quite distinct and that women don’t need respect.

The last year or so, I’ve been realizing that I as a woman need respect from my husband, and I can’t feel loved if the love doesn’t come with respect for me as a person.

 

[RetreatFan]

I didn’t phrase my question properly about the direct connection thing.

Head of wife=husband
Head of husband=Christ

I’m coming in a bit late here, but actually that’s not what the text says at all. “For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church”. That’s a world of difference. The idea is that husband and wife are meant to be a sign (sacrament) of the ultimate union between Christ and His Church, which Paul himself refers to a few verses later.

 

[Xantippe]

I also said “most suck” not “all suck” the idea that any wrong or hardship negates others is a logical fallacy I have never understood. Carrying a heavy jug of water must have been far harder than plowing the fields.

You wrote “all.” I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote. It’s there upthread if anybody wants to look.

 

[LethalMouse]

You say the scripture tells me to do this. I say no, it doesn’t.

I have been dropped enough times, and broken enough bones, to say out loud, “I’m not going to submit to any human being, in any area of life, who hasn’t proved by his actions that he is a trustworthy authority in this area.”"

To the first part: Isn’t that why there are hundress of protestant churches?

To the second part: Shouldn’t he have proven himself before you marry him?

Before you bring up arranged marriages, let’s be hobest and your rights wouldn’t be much of an issue if you could bbe forced to do that anyway

 

[Sarcelle]

I also said “most suck” not “all suck” the idea that any wrong or hardship negates others is a logical fallacy I have never understood. Carrying a heavy jug of water must have been far harder than plowing the fields.

And dont worry men and women are almost all one homogenous metro species anyway, give it 50 yrs and we will all be trans and no worries. God clearly was wrong and activists are clearly right.

Whoever said that God is wrong and activists are right?

 

[Xantippe]

You may have also passed if you were an older man.

That tangent aside, personal attraction is hardly enforcement. If it were, we wouldn’t have an obesity crisis in this country. I also won’t date a man who uses meth, but that doesn’t stop them. Many, many men are not interested in female lawyers, but that didn’t stop me.

And if my preferences do count as enforcement, then why are so many men walking around in skinny jeans and pale pink button downs with perfect hair?!

What are your feelings about v-neck t-shirts on men?

 

[Sarcelle]

I felt the OP question that started this thread was much in the sense of “what the religion says SHOULD happen” and not an earthly question of what COULD happen if everyone involved isn’t listening to God. Considering if we all listen to him there would be like no murders, STDs, rapes, etc…

But I mentally was on the keel of addressing people on a certain level and people like many who I have back and forth with ie: married and older women.

When I thought of how a younger inexperienced person might take something I felt the need to expand into the what if’s when I said sonething that could be taken wrong. So while to some of you women I think you have a bit too much prejudice, I admit that I got worried about the same thing ugh if only everyone did everything right…

I think you have a bit too much prejudice yourself if you think women are coddled and shielded the world over from too much unpleasantness. I grew up in the third world, where women and children are literally sold like livestock.

Ask yourself this question. If you were to be instantly transported to where ISIS holds rule, will you choose to do it as a man or as a woman?

 

[LethalMouse]

You wrote “all.” I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote. It’s there upthread if anybody wants to

“The general theory was the woman was led in a sense by the person who got the most suck, the man was a shield to absorb all the suck for the woman.”

Ugh I had to look this up. I said both “most” and “all” so which one is it?

Please apply common sense to the quick writings of someone on the internet. Clearly “all” is factually invalid.

“Most” is a practical assertion whether or not disputed.

 

[LethalMouse]

I think you have a bit too much prejudice yourself if you think women are coddled and shielded the world over from too much unpleasantness. I grew up in the third world, where women and children are literally sold like livestock.

Ask yourself this question. If you were to be instantly transported to where ISIS holds rule, will you choose to do it as a man or as a woman?

None of that has anything to do with St. Paul or the cathechism. If I start murdering people does that mean the catholic church, and even God approve of random murder now?

 

[Xantippe]

I didn’t phrase my question properly about the direct connection thing.

Head of wife=husband
Head of husband=Christ

Isn’t this unfair? It’s like Christ is not “directly connected” to the wife (in the chain of command, I mean). And if I’m wrong, then why is there even this teaching (that the head of a wife is her husband while the head of the husband is God) and what does he mean by that?

I know ultimately Christ is head of the wife too. But like…why…? This makes me feel so uncomfortable.

And will someone explain to me about the wife being the heart. It always seemed like a teaching to shut women up to me? Like “yikes the women are mad that men are the head of them, let’s call them the heart”. Yes, I’m being very pessimistic here, I’m a Catholic that is only recently trying to learn as much as I can.

Here’s a fun fact that might be helpful.

In ancient times, it was not universally known that the brain was an organ of cognition. You’ll notice that the heart, rather than the brain is thought of as the seat of decision-making in the Old Testament. Aristotle thought of the brain as being a cooling mechanism, although Galen did realize the connection between the brain and thought.

So when St. Paul talks about the man being the head, he is not necessarily thinking of a head as we would, in terms of brains or decision-making.

 

[LethalMouse]

I think you have a bit too much prejudice yourself if you think women are coddled and shielded the world over from too much unpleasantness. I grew up in the third world, where women and children are literally sold like livestock.

Ask yourself this question. If you were to be instantly transported to where ISIS holds rule, will you choose to do it as a man or as a woman?

Also, important!

You clearly missed the point where I stated the reality of your womanly fears and my ability to feel the same way when I think someone will misinterpret the submission thing. Hence the entire passage where I said I understood your fears.