Women's rolls in socity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Emilyfromohio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Emilyfromohio

Guest
So, I was reading a website today, and alot of what they said made since, but alot of it seemed a little…weird. I t makes me a little worried that I was born with to big a mouth 🤷

Don’t get me wrong, men and women have different rules to play in society. The first role of a women should be being a mother, that’s all well and dandy Women can not be priests, or bishops, and i get it.

And, at first glance, the site that I was looking through seemed logical. But then it got into this thing about how women should not lead men under ,rro teach them. Women should not run for public office, and should not be in the military. They should not be judges, or lawyers, or police officers.

Now, I have no desire to join the military, be a cop, or run for public office. In fact i want to be a High School History teacher (I’m beginning Universality this fall). But these rules seemed a little…different. To be honest, I have never seen them, or heard them before.

Am I just crazy? lol
 
Emilyfromohio said:
So, I was reading a website today, and alot of what they said made since, but alot of it seemed a little…weird. I t makes me a little worried that I was born with to big a mouth 🤷

Don’t get me wrong, men and women have different rules to play in society. The first role of a women should be being a mother, that’s all well and dandy Women can not be priests, or bishops, and i get it.

And, at first glance, the site that I was looking through seemed logical. But then it got into this thing about how women should not lead men under ,rro teach them. Women should not run for public office, and should not be in the military. They should not be judges, or lawyers, or police officers.

Now, I have no desire to join the military, be a cop, or run for public office. In fact i want to be a High School History teacher (I’m beginning Universality this fall). But these rules seemed a little…different. To be honest, I have never seen them, or heard them before.

Am I just crazy? lol
Click to expand...
Do you have the website in question? Exactly what consitutes as wrong thinking depends greatly on the tone of the writing.

For example, was the site attempting to argue that women should not be lawyers or officers because of physical or emotional differences?
 
Emilyfromohio said:
And, at first glance, the site that I was looking through seemed logical. But then it got into this thing about how women should not lead men under ,rro teach them. Women should not run for public office, and should not be in the military. They should not be judges, or lawyers, or police officers.
Click to expand...
Deborah was a head of state, judge, general, soldier, prophetess and publicly performing singer/songwriter – and a wife – and a godly woman.
Jael was a spy and a soldier – and a godly woman.
The Queen of Sheba was a head of state – and a godly woman.
There will always be fanatics telling everyone how it ought to be. Don’t dwell on it too much.
 
Emilyfromohio said:
catholicplanet.com/women/index.htm

Please, keep in mind though, I’m not saying everything is wrong
Click to expand...
Differences in women and men are not to be denied, but they are equal.

If the writer of that piece made an argument saying something such as “because of the differences between women and men, women are not suited for X jobs” then I suppose he would at least have a legitimate leg to stand upon.

It appears that the writer is not arguing so much as trying to say Catholic teaching and theology support the opinion of women being unfit for public duty and large responsibilities.
 
Emilyfromohio said:
catholicplanet.com/women/index.htm

Please, keep in mind though, I’m not saying everything is wrong
Click to expand...
There doesn’t seem to much particularly Catholic about it. When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated, canon 1262 from the 1917 Code of Canon Law was dropped. Per canon 6 (1983), this means it was abrogated. There is no canonical requirement for head coverings.

If a woman wants to wear a head covering as a matter of devotion, particularly as a sign of subordination to God, good for them. But trying to impose something as a moral obligation on others that the Church has dropped? Doesn’t sound particularly Catholic to me.
 
Ignore that website. Women can’t be priests or bishops but they can hold any other position in society that men can.
 
I think our power as women to be anything we want is limited only by our fear.👍
 
I’m not saying I agree with everything on that website, infact alot of the different subjects on that site do seem suspect, however…I do tend to agree with the sites general take on women’s role within society.

Like the site said, it is easy to throw out passages from scripture because they don’t fit with our contemporary culture, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t true. This is God’s word after all.

I would actually like to see a reasonable refutation of the points the site made as opposed to “that’s not a good site” or “it’s not a faithful Catholic site so ignore it”. Those are *ad hominem *attacks, which although they may be true, do nothing to support your argument. Even apostates can speak the truth sometimes.
 
strngrnrth said:
Deborah was a head of state, judge, general, soldier, prophetess and publicly performing singer/songwriter – and a wife – and a godly woman.
Jael was a spy and a soldier – and a godly woman.
The Queen of Sheba was a head of state – and a godly woman.
There will always be fanatics telling everyone how it ought to be. Don’t dwell on it too much.
Click to expand...
There will always be exceptions to every rule. In fact, an exception to a rule implies the rule that it is the exception to.

We also know that there are many places in scripture where God exalts the lowly to confound the mighty. I’m not saying that women are lowly, just making a point.

You forgot St. Joan of Arc by the way. Another good example.
 
Well if you read it on the internet, it must be true! 😉

The author of that website has other, um, unusual ideas:

catholicplanet.com/future/overview1.htm

Granted, it makes for an exciting “what if” novel storyline, but in my experience, anyone who tries to put dates on future events via prophecy is not to be trusted.
 
Kaninchen said:
No, it implies that the rule is refuted.
Click to expand...
That is completely illogical. The rule is what we use to measure the exception. If the exception refutes the rule, than the rule no longer exists, and the exception becomes the new rule. That is like saying the existence of Y as a vowel, refutes all other vowels, leaving Y as the only vowel.
 
Feanaro said:
That is completely illogical.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, I’m afraid that it is the logical position.
The rule is what we use to measure the exception.
Click to expand...
No, the exception is the refutation of the rule - if somebody says “All cats are white” and we then see a black cat, we don’t say “All cats are white except that one”, or “Since all cats are white, that black thing isn’t a cat”, we say “We need a new look at the question of cat colors.”
If the exception refutes the rule, than the rule no longer exists, and the exception becomes the new rule.
Click to expand...
No, the exception doesn’t become the new rule - the refutation of “All cats are white” by discovering a black cat doesn’t mean that “All cats are black”, it means that we need to rethink the whole question of cat colors.
That is like saying the existence of Y as a vowel, refutes all other vowels, leaving Y as the only vowel.
Click to expand...
Not really.
 
I think men and women should avoid rolls. They should go to the gym more often! 😃
 
Heh, I bet that person would really despise me, considering I’m a cantor and I intend on becoming a lawyer, and would eventually like to enter politics at some point. And as uncharitable and unChristian as it may be, I’m happy that I’ll be able to do that just to say “sorry, not listening to you.”
 
Feanaro said:
That is completely illogical. The rule is what we use to measure the exception. If the exception refutes the rule, than the rule no longer exists, and the exception becomes the new rule. That is like saying the existence of Y as a vowel, refutes all other vowels, leaving Y as the only vowel.
Click to expand...
Say wha??? :confused:
 
Kaninchen:

“All cats are white” is not a good example because color is not essential to a cats nature, but only accidental. What makes a cat a cat?

From dictionary.com- Exception: 2)something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.

Question: If there is no general rule, how do you know what your discussing is an exception? An exception to what?

Again from dictionary.com- Refutation: an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.; disproof.

To disprove something is to make it null and void, or take it out of existence.
 
Feanaro said:
“All cats are white” is not a good example because color is not essential to a cats nature, but only accidental.
Click to expand...
It’s a perfectly (purrfectly) good example in logic and phrases like ‘essential to a cat’s nature’ tell you nothing about the ‘nature’ of cats - that you discover by conjecturing ideas about cat physiology or behavior and testing them out. A failure in such a test will tell you that your conjecture has failed and you need to find a better one - a test success won’t tell you your conjecture is right, by the way, but that’s another issue.
What makes a cat a cat?
Click to expand...
Evolution in one branch of mammals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top