Penitent Woman, I am trying to help you by warning you against the rampant feminism of posters on this forum and the traps you may fall into by being misled by them.  You will compromise your future family life by accepting their feminist attitudes and not recognizing feminism for what it is when you encounter it. That is also important when "reading men" as you call it.  Don’t you wish to avoid marrying a man who is a feminist?

Naturally these feminists will view my comments as uncharitable.  The truth is a bitter pill to swallow.  Their replies are against me personally and not with my views, you will notice.  I am not humble enough and must pray for myself, etc.  Penitent Woman, you are not a dumb woman.  You are educated enough to see these arguments for what they are and turn them against the feminists.  At least twice you have seen through them.  I don’t remember which threads but I am referring to the times you stood up to the homeschooling bully and then questioned androgynous parenting.  You are not afraid to speak up and neither am I.  We must remember our place as women when we do so.

Print out this thread and show it to the priest.  Let him tell you who are the feminists.  Let him explain why single mothers posting feminist views on traditional Catholic forums (where other young women are also looking for guidance) are dangerous.

To answer your direct question to me about the research, I am warning you against being misguided.  Yes, I would encourage reading of religious books.  Of course that is in our best interest.  Yes, we are right to ask questions about what we don’t understand and search for answers.  Most of those answers are readily available because the same questions have been asked for centuries; a religious authority can tell you where to find them.  If by research you mean striking out on your own and coming up with sources such as you posted, then no…I am against that.  

I am not saying that these feminist posters are wrong in every single thing they write.  That is too general of a statement.  I object to their feminist views.  I can see they are sincere in trying to help you; however, I am saying, be on your guard against the feminist attitudes that will harm your chances of the future you are trying to create for yourself and your child.  For example, the suggestions that CatherineofSienna gave to read St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross are good ones.  They are the two that I would have recommended myself...I read St. John of the Cross almost daily and you might find him in particular to be encouraging.  On the flip side, the quotes she provided in this thread speak for themselves about her defensive feminist tendencies.  Look at her other posts in other threads for more evidence of this.  She hasn’t even been consistent in her posts.  What that is all about, I don’t know or care really.  

As your screen name would suggest, you admit your sins and wish to be living a certain kind of life…one of traditional Catholicism.  As such, you are vulnerable.  There aren’t too many women (or men) who will give you the same comments as I do.  I don’t sugar-coat my words when dealing with these feminists.  Let the priest direct you in this.  God bless you, Flannery

This is where I do become very confused.  Maybe my ideas about women/wives are more of a protestant understanding and not Catholic.  I know what the bible commands, but it also seems that by the things you've posted (and by reading about other saints) that the Catholic understanding of patriarchy is different.

What made your site a bad example wasn’t the submissive attitude of the wife in general, which was good, if perhaps a bit manipulative, but her submissiveness in the case of her husband commanding her to sin. Without knowing what your ideas about women/wives are, and without a description of the protestant understanding of patriarchy, I can’t comment much further. You should seek out what Bishop Williamson has written on the subject.

In the beginning, God created man and woman, both human but quite different, firstly man, secondly woman (Genesis I, 27; II, 22); woman to be man's help-mate like unto himself (Gem. II, 18), woman for man, not man for woman (I Cor. XI, 9), for "the man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man" (I Cor. XI, 8). Thus even before original sin happened, God ordered between man and woman distinction, inequality, and the headship of man over woman for purposes of living in society and in the family upon this earth.

Original sin, whereby Eve made Adam sin and not the other way round (I Tim II 14), entailed Eve's being punished, amongst other things, by the turning of her natural and painless subordination to Adam into a punishing domination of his over her, for she had shown by seducing him that she needed to be controlled... "thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee" (Genesis III, 16). Thenceforth with the transmission of original sin to all children of Adam passes to all daughters of Adam (except, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary) this punitive subordination.

As with all problems of sin, the only true solution is the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance in a Catholic marriage the painful control of man over woman, evident in all non-Christian cultures and re-emerging in our own anti-Christian culture, becomes by supernatural grace more and more that subordination of woman to man which is in accordance with their nature and which is profitable to both, which Eve had before she and Adam fell.

Graham, thank you very much for explaining this to me.  I had figured the birth control part was the only major issue.  I made sure to make a note of that immediately.  What I wanted to discuss was her method, not the specific, personal anecdote where her submission meant giving her husband permission to sin. I mistakenly copied that part.

Because the original post was about a secular researcher's ideas on male/female communication, I simply wanted to discuss a counter theory about how communication could better work.  I noticed you used the word "manipulative" and I am curious if you thought it sounded too insidious or something? I wondered about her tone as well.
Also, thank you for mentioning my response to you. I tried to word that well.

Flannery, I  really appreciate that you have replied and elaborated.  I will make sure to discuss this with a priest. I am thankful that you want to be helpful to me.

On a final note, I have been assured, by some,  that my writing style clearly conveyed that I only wanted to discuss the method, something other posters do frequently with not exclusively Catholic ideas, and that I was simply being personally picked on by having it pointed out. This was theorized because the ideas behind content of the original discussion was comparatively far less in line with church teaching about the roles of spouses.   Nonetheless,  I will assume, in Christian charity, that for some, despite noting the problem, it was not clear enough, and they did find my copy/paste to be truly harmful/dangerous.  I apologize again. I will just have to examine more carefully, what the difference is between discussing secular social theory, and non-Catholic, but religious-based theories.  

Sede Catholic, Lover of Truth, Caraffa, PartyIsOver221 (who unfortunately rarely posts anymore), and Graham are also good at speaking out against feminism. I know there are more, but that's all I can think of for now.

On a final note, I have been assured, by some,  that my writing style clearly conveyed that I only wanted to discuss the method, something other posters do frequently with not exclusively Catholic ideas, and that I was simply being personally picked on by having it pointed out.

The quotation was probably off-putting to some people.  In particular, citing a Protestant who approves of birth control is a major no no.  Even if they might be right in some general way, and even though you explained you didn't agree with the part about birth control, it is such a glaring problem with the passage that some people might take exception to your quoting it.  

This was theorized because the ideas behind content of the original discussion was comparatively far less in line with church teaching about the roles of spouses.   Nonetheless,  I will assume, in Christian charity, that for some, despite noting the problem, it was not clear enough, and they did find my copy/paste to be truly harmful/dangerous.  I apologize again. I will just have to examine more carefully, what the difference is between discussing secular social theory, and non-Catholic, but religious-based theories.  

There is a lot of confusion in the world, and we know you are seeking the truth and have found Catholic Truth that you wish to better understand.  There are truths that we can understand with natural reason, so there are pagans, non-Catholics, who can discover true things.  However in the context of marriage itself, since the Catholic view of marriage is so exceptional in the modern world, it is best to cite Catholic sources when it comes to spiritual guidance.  This isn't to say that in practical non-spiritual matters one should not consult non-Catholic books.

Try not to feel bad about any criticisms you receive here.  If there is someone who doesn't wish you well, which is something I doubt, you can best insulate yourself by focusing simply on what is the truth and how you may best serve it.

Penitent Woman, let me add my voice to those who advise you to avoid Protestant sources.  Even writers who recognize that  a wife must be submissive to her husband are likely have many errors in their writing.  I have found the most useful sources for this subject to be in older papal writings.  I suggest reading the entire Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae by Leo XIII (a great opponent of modernism) see: Arcanum and especially note section 11:

Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For "the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."

There is also a helpful section in Casti Conubii by Pius XI in sections 74 and 75.

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: - physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

Thank you.  This is the kind of thing I want to read more of.  I really appreciate you providing this and I will read what you have recommended.

The motives behind hoarding off young women to college campuses to live with complete independence, to be considered equals to men, and to receive a certain type of education are just not pure or healthy.  It is indeed all done under the theory that women need to be emancipated from their God given identity, in order to live a good life.  What a horrible lie.  :cry:

The last section of what you posted really hits home.  I feel like my life and the struggles I face now are the direct result of how the world has messed with natural, God given roles for men and women, which I never even really thought about prior to becoming a mother.  I started to think about it when I had to abandon my 6 week old baby so that I could keep us from being homeless, which is a pretty miserable reality. It has always felt so unnatural and wrong. Why anyone would choose that lifestyle or promote it is beyond me.

My biggest challenge now is figuring out how to live my life now (when I have no choice but to work) and not allow myself to internalize the feminist attitudes I encounter all the time.  I am constantly being encouraged to seek more education (a.k.a. debt) and assert myself more to advance my career.  I feel pulled in many directions, but hopefully through continued pray and counsel I can sort it all out.  

I'm pleased that you found my recommendations helpful.  I agree with you about how far our society has strayed from what God intended marriage to be.  I know what you mean about not internalizing feminist attitudes. It is hard to avoid being contaminated by all the wrong thinking since we live in this society too.  I am so thankful to have discovered the traditional Catholic teaching on this.  It is so beautiful and sane.

I think I have some idea of the challenges you are facing. I have a daughter who had a child outside of marriage.  We supported her so that she did not have to leave her baby, but a child should have a father.  I prayed a Novena to St. Joseph asking for a husband to care for her and my grandson.  I figured that the man God chose as protector of Our Lady and foster father of Our Lord would understand what was needed.  A good man has married my daughter so do not give up hope.

Jaynek, first of all God Bless you taking care of your daughter and grandson. They are blessed to have you. I'm happy to hear she has found a loving husband.

I enjoyed the article from Bishop Williamson. It makes so much sense to me, but it's bittersweet because I can't go back and change that I went to college.My parochial high school had something like a 97% college placement rate. It was just something you do. I never once heard (in years of "Catholic"schooling) that girls shouldn't go to college.My parents would not have supported any other decision, and at barely 18 years old I was really powerless. I wanted to stay in town and study at community college.That was not acceptable.  

To hear that I wouldn't make as good of a wife because of this experience is a difficult thing to face. Combine that with having a baby and the cards are stacked against me. That is the reason I yearn for so much understanding. It probably sounds really silly, but sometimes I wonder if always having a rosary in my purse is what kept me from being totally corrupted by liberal ideas and feminism. Sure, many ideas soaked in, but I still feel very maternal and very feminine. Traditional gender roles feel right to me, while they would horrify most women who grew up modern like I did. Maybe that rosary protected me.