That does not sound misogynist to me. I should note that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that a woman would be under her husband's authority even if the Fall had not occurred. It should not be seen simply as a punishment but as part of God's order for creation.
Nobody's accusing God of misogyny. What's at issue here is the men who abuse this authority and make it about themselves ... leading to the poor treatment and derision of women. Church Fathers discussed that the original relationship between man and a woman involved a natural complementarity, with the man being the more active principle and the woman more passive. In the unfallen state, woman NATURALLY followed the man's lead. But when that natural following of the man's lead broke down after the Fall, the state of "subjection" occurred, with subjection being an almost violent way to FORCE the re-establishment of that order which was naturally there without any need for violence. It's a punishment in the sense that what was there naturally before now must be forced. It's analogous to concupiscence. In the unfallen state, the body NATURALLY followed the lead of the intellect and will. But when this natural order broken down after the fall, man now has to bring the flesh into subjection by violently forcing it to comply with the intellect and will. That's what this post-Fall subjection means ... both with regard to concupiscence of the flesh AND the man-woman relationship. Yes, woman was always under the "authority" of the man, but that authority was simply a natural order. After the Fall, it was necessary for constantly FORCE it to remain that way ... thus subjection.
AUTHORITY is part of God's order for creation, but SUBJECTION is a consequence of the Fall. [see the distinction above]
Topic: Misogyny and Traditional Catholic Men (Read 25903 times)