Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Jaynek on November 01, 2017, 10:33:45 AM
-
I saw claims in another thread that misogyny is common among trads. I have not see this myself, but I have few opportunities to observe men outside my family. I haven't seen anything among the men I see at church that seems wrong. On forums, I have seen men expressing anger and frustration with feminism, but I don't think this is misogyny.
I am starting a new thread because this topic seems tangential to the thread where I saw the claims. Also it was in the anonymous sub-forum which I really dislike.
-
For myself, I haven't noticed as you described here or in my life, with the exception of one person here who sites the part in the Bible about women keeping quiet. Noticing too it is brought up only when the woman disagrees with him, if the woman agrees with him it seems alright for her to speak. :jester: Therefore realizing his weakness I just ignore it.
I have always throughout my life gotten along with men better than women anyway. However, my best friends have been women but men have shown me proper respect for the most part and I have no complaints.
-
I love women, and my standard for what that means is the Blessed Virgin.
She is the Woman.
For that cause I despise whatever not only falls short of that, but actively assaults it.
If someone has a problem with women being women, which objectively means Marian, then it is just that, their problem.
If "Mysogyne" means "Marian" then yes, I'm guilty.
Please don't rabbit trail this into blaming men; start another thread, we're very easy targets.
-
Of course you know my take on it, Jaynek. I find a half dozen or so of these men at every Traditional chapel I've been too. I've been to many over the years since I cut loose from SSPX seminary.
I guess that misogyny needs to be defined, right?
So, for instance, modern liberals would consider it misogynist to simply state that wives should obey their husbands.
So we need to define misogyny before we can have a rational discussion about it.
I see it manifested in the attitude that some men have that women, and their wives in particular, are somehow lesser human beings. They justify this attitude with subjection theology, i.e. the correct notion that wives are subject to their husbands and subordinate to them.
Subordination, however, does not necessarily mean inferiority. So, for instance, Our Lord was subject to St. Joseph and Our Lady, and Our Lady to St. Joseph ... and so the order was actually inverted vis-a-vis their dignity. Some women can be superior to some men in virtue. Some women can be more intelligent than some men. Some women can even be physically stronger than some men. Misogynist men can feel threatened and insecure about this, so they find other ways to put women down. Also, some men feel dominated by women when they have issues with purity. Because they are dominated by their passions, and the women causes these passions, they perceive this as being dominated by women.
Not only do these types regularly quote the passage about how wives should be subject to their husbands and how women should keep silent, but they talk down to their wives in very derogatory language. They have double standards they impose on their wives to which they themselves don't adhere. They can be downright cruel and don't care about their wives' feelings or overall well-being.
Being cruel and uncaring doesn't necessarily by itself mean misogyny. You could just be an a--hole. But when this a--hole behavior towards women is justified in principle using theology, then it bleeds over into misogyny. It's a PRINCIPLED acting like a--holes to women, treating them as their inferiors, as their servants/slaves, almost like people who exist for no other reason than to please them and to serve them, having no dignity on their own apart from their husband.
-
I love women, and my standard for what that means is the Blessed Virgin.
She is the Woman.
For that cause I despise whatever not only falls short of that, but actively assaults it.
If someone has a problem with women being women, which objectively means Marian, then it is just that, their problem.
If "Mysogyne" means "Marian" then yes, I'm guilty.
Please don't rabbit trail this into blaming men; start another thread, we're very easy targets.
So you despise all women who fall short of Our Lady? In other words, you despise all women except Our Lady?
:facepalm:
-
Subordination, however, does not necessarily mean inferiority. So, for instance, Our Lord was subject to St. Joseph and Our Lady, and Our Lady to St. Joseph ... and so the order was actually inverted vis-a-vis their dignity. Some women can be superior to some men in virtue. Some women can be more intelligent than some men. Some women can even be physically stronger than some men.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that women are inferior to men. Do you consider him a misogynist?
-
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that women are inferior to men. Do you consider him a misogynist?
You're just failing to make the appropriate distinction ... as per usual.
Before laying it out, let me ask you:
Is Our Blessed Mother inferior to me? I thought, at first, to say St. Joseph, but then thought, let's take it another step. In fact, is Our Lady inferior the most depraved male Satanist serial killer who ever lived?
-
Of course you know my take on it, Jaynek. I find a half dozen or so of these men at every Traditional chapel I've been too. I've been to many over the years since I cut loose from SSPX seminary.
I guess that misogyny needs to be defined, right?
So, for instance, modern liberals would consider it misogynist to simply state that wives should obey their husbands.
So we need to define misogyny before we can have a rational discussion about it.
I see it manifested in the attitude that some men have that women, and their wives in particular, are somehow lesser human beings. They justify this attitude with subjection theology, i.e. the correct notion that wives are subject to their husbands and subordinate to them.
Subordination, however, does not necessarily mean inferiority. So, for instance, Our Lord was subject to St. Joseph and Our Lady, and Our Lady to St. Joseph ... and so the order was actually inverted vis-a-vis their dignity. Some women can be superior to some men in virtue. Some women can be more intelligent than some men. Some women can even be physically stronger than some men. Misogynist men can feel threatened and insecure about this, so they find other ways to put women down. Also, some men feel dominated by women when they have issues with purity. Because they are dominated by their passions, and the women causes these passions, they perceive this as being dominated by women.
Not only do these types regularly quote the passage about how wives should be subject to their husbands and how women should keep silent, but they talk down to their wives in very derogatory language. They have double standards they impose on their wives to which they themselves don't adhere. They can be downright cruel and don't care about their wives' feelings or overall well-being.
Being cruel and uncaring doesn't necessarily by itself mean misogyny. You could just be an a--hole. But when this a--hole behavior towards women is justified in principle using theology, then it bleeds over into misogyny. It's a PRINCIPLED acting like a--holes to women, treating them as their inferiors, as their servants/slaves, almost like people who exist for no other reason than to please them and to serve them, having no dignity on their own apart from their husband.
.
Traditionalists have a generally ruined notion of what authority is and why it's important, so it's hardly a surprise to see mistakes about authority creep into domestic life. Good post.
-
So you despise all women who fall short of Our Lady? In other words, you despise all women except Our Lady?
:facepalm:
You're twisting of words is why we don't have many; the most charitable take here is that you don't adequately attend to the words used, and not that you're just a habitual liar.
" :facepalm:" yourself.
-
You're just failing to make the appropriate distinction ... as per usual.
Before laying it out, let me ask you:
Is Our Blessed Mother inferior to me? I thought, at first, to say St. Joseph, but then thought, let's take it another step. In fact, is Our Lady inferior the most depraved male Satanist serial killer who ever lived?
If you are not prepared to answer my question without making me answer a trick question first, then I will do without.
-
If you are not prepared to answer my question without making me answer a trick question first, then I will do without.
It's not a trick question. Just requires the appropriate distinction to be applied.
No one in their right mind would say that Our Lady is inferior to me.
-
Your twisting of words is why we don't have many; the most charitable take here is that you don't adequately attend to the words used, and not that you're just a habitual liar.
" :facepalm:" yourself.
-
No one in their right mind would say that Our Lady is inferior to me.
No one but Satan would tempt any man to believe that he is superior to the Holy Virgin Mary.
Our Lady is superior not only to Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim, but also to men and women.
This is one reason why Satan hates her so much. In his haughty pride and arrogance, he cannot be inferior to anyone, not even God Himself.
-
St. Thomas taught that female nature was inferior to male nature.
If male nature is superior to female nature, than I am superior to Our Lady with respect to my nature.
Let's take a simpler example. Am I superior to a cheetah?
When a cheetah and I are viewed from the perspective of our intellectual capacity, then indeed I am superior.
But when a cheetah and I are viewed from the perspective of our ability to run, then I am inferior to a cheetah.
I call this formal slicing (my short-hand term for this) ... and it's one of the first lessons in scholastic philosophy.
Think of it as the "with respect to" (Latin quoad or secundum) distinction.
I am superior to a cheetah with respect to intellectual capacity. I am inferior to a cheetah with respect to running ability.
-
No one but Satan would tempt any man to believe that he is superior to the Holy Virgin Mary.
Our Lady is superior not only to Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim, but also to men and women.
This is one reason why Satan hates her so much. In his haughty pride and arrogance, he cannot be inferior to anyone, not even God Himself.
You're missing the context for this quotation. Jaynek stated that men are superior to women. Since I am a man, why I am not superior to Our Lady? I answered this in the previous post.
-
Our Lady is [obviously] superior to me ... simpliciter.
But I am superior to Our Lady ... secundum quid, that is, quoad naturam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid
-
So one way to define misogyny, thanks to the developments in this thread, would be for a someone to consider women inferior to men simpliciter simply by virtue of the fact that they are inferior secundum quid ... quoad ordinem.
Because you did not understand this, Jaynek, this very well may have led your mind to embrace various misogynist attitudes yourself.
-
You're missing the context for this quotation. Jaynek stated that men are superior to women. Since I am a man, why I am not superior to Our Lady? I answered this in the previous post.
I understood your post perfectly well.
I was not answering your question, but merely stating that those who believe that The Most Pure Virgin is inferior have accepted the lie of Satan who is pride and arrogance personified.
Our Lady who is Queen of the Angels and Queen of Heaven is far superior to us in all manner: in her strength, in her beauty, in sanctity, in purity, in her power, etc.
-
You're missing the context for this quotation. Jaynek stated that men are superior to women. Since I am a man, why I am not superior to Our Lady? I answered this in the previous post.
I did not state that men are superior to women. I said that this was the position of St. Thomas Aquinas and asked if you thought this made him a misogynist.
-
So one way to define misogyny, thanks to the developments in this thread, would be for a someone to consider women inferior to men simpliciter simply by virtue of the fact that they are inferior secundum quid ... quoad ordinem.
Because you did not understand this, Jaynek, this very well may have led your mind to embrace various misogynist attitudes yourself.
I understand what St. Thomas said about women and I understand the difference between categorical and general statements.
I do not understand why you think you have a right to claim that I have misogynist attitudes. You know very little about me or my views.
-
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that women are inferior to men. Do you consider him a misogynist?
My point, Jaynek, in my previous posts was to say that your question has a false premise. St. Thomas Aquinas did NOT teach that women are inferior to men ... as per my previous posts. You are very slick in how you change the subject.
-
I understand what St. Thomas said about women and I understand the difference between categorical and general statements.
Well, then, you apparently failed to put these two together when you falsely claimed that St. Thomas taught that women are inferior to men categorically.
-
I do not understand why you think you have a right to claim that I have misogynist attitudes. You know very little about me or my views.
I have made inferences from your posts. You have not once said anything in support of a woman's right to be treated a certain way by her husband. Whenever I have mentioned certain inappropriate behaviors and attitudes from men towards women, you have essentially said that it's always the woman's fault, etc. You've never met a man who has ever wronged his wife or treated her poorly. You're always defending men and all manner of ill behavior by men ... against any complaints of impropriety, invariably shifting the blame towards the women. In this tendency, readers will forgive me if I detect misogyny. I have some suspicions about why you are this way, but I'll keep them to myself.
-
Well, then, you apparently failed to put these two together when you falsely claimed that St. Thomas taught that women are inferior to men categorically.
I never claimed that. I said that St. Thomas taught that women are inferior. I did not use the word "categorically." Since you are presumably familiar with what he said, I did not think it necessary to qualify it further for my meaning to be clear.
-
I said that St. Thomas taught that women are inferior.
You made this statement without qualification, and therefore it's a categorical assertion. Your statement reads as if you were claimed that St. Thomas considered the inferior simpliciter. Indeed, if St. Thomas would have taught that they are inferior simpliciter, then, yes, I would consider him misogynist. But he did not teach that, so he is not therefore a misogynist.
-
Since you are presumably familiar with what he said, I did not think it necessary to qualify it further for my meaning to be clear.
OK, now you're just lying to save face. Sorry, but you clearly did not know these distinctions. When I asked you about them, you claimed it was some kind of trick question.
-
I stated that there was a missing distinction and then asked you
Before laying it out, let me ask you:
Is Our Blessed Mother inferior to me?
You refused to answer this and claimed it was a trick question. If you knew these distinctions and knew how they applied to this question, there's absolutely no trick to it whatsoever. You would have answered that Our Blessed Mother is superior to me simpliciter but inferior secundum quid ... in so far as her female nature.
No trick at all. But you claim that you understood this all along. You have now been exposed as so invested in your ego that you'll make stuff up rather than admit ignorance about anything. "Yeah, I knew this all along." ... even though earlier it was evident that you did not by your inability to answer my question. Your inner feminist has manifested herself.
Enjoy this thread without me. I will not continue wasting my time on someone like that.
-
That works out well. I do not engage in discussions with people who call me a liar.
-
I don't know if this helps or harms you, Ladislaus, but I think the distinctions you've made in this thread are things Catholics need to hear on a regular basis. They need to be preached from the pulpit and in adult catechism classes. Anytime a priest has the chance, he should take it. I was very hesitant to even click on this post (must be feeling brave today) but am happy I did. It restored a little bit of my faith in such threads.
I have many times observed the treatment you describe with the mentalities described. Thankfully my own husband is very considerate of me and it has done nothing but wonders for us as a couple, but he has a couple of brothers who tried to "educate" him when we were first married. In their eyes he was not to take my needs, opinions or concerns into consideration at all. They are by far not the only ones who become selfish, inconsiderate jerks and try to pass that off as part of their vocation as husbands. There are many good men out there to be sure, but there are also many whose concept of authority and how to wield it is quite warped. It's unfortunate because people in the world would use these as examples of how our Faith is misogynistic and harmful to women, when in fact women came to be well loved and better treated because of our Faith. But as always, the devil is in the details and it all greatly depends on the proper distinctions being made and understood.
It goes without saying but the Holy Family is a fascinating and beautiful example in so many ways.
-
I have many times observed the treatment you describe with the mentalities described. Thankfully my own husband is very considerate of me and it has done nothing but wonders for us as a couple, but he has a couple of brothers who tried to "educate" him when we were first married. In their eyes he was not to take my needs, opinions or concerns into consideration at all. They are by far not the only ones who become selfish, inconsiderate jerks and try to pass that off as part of their vocation as husbands. There are many good men out there to be sure, but there are also many whose concept of authority and how to wield it is quite warped. It's unfortunate because people in the world would use these as examples of how our Faith is misogynistic and harmful to women, when in fact women came to be well loved and better treated because of our Faith.
Indeed, this attitude is all too common among Traditional Catholic men. And, ironically, it generally causes a reaction among their wives and women in general TOWARDS feminist attitudes. Conversely, the more respect and honor a husband shows to his wife, the more naturally inclined she is (if she's at all of good will) to be submissive. And, yes, some of these types have attempted to edumacate me about the matter as well. On the thread about wife-beating (aka "corporal punishment"), one of these guys called me a "pervert" (and a liberal, a fag, and various other assorted things) for holding that it's wrong for a husband to lay violent hands on his wife.
-
I once read a private revelation, maybe from St. Bridget, where Our Lord Jesus Christ said that when a man wished to prevent his wife from commiting adultery, he used every possible means, including threatening her or using corporal punishment; and likewise when God wishes to prevent us from commiting sin, He uses every possible means.
It is not a sin to slap one's wife when she has commited adultery or when she threatens to do it.
In liberal societies, women are tyrants: they are proud, nasty, unfaithful, and have harems, so to speak.
-
Corporal punishment has always been a part of the natural order, but it is lawful only when the wife tries to prevail over her husband with much pride or when she commits great sins.
See here. (https://books.google.fr/books?id=sHlpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Domestic+violence+in+classical+canon+law&source=bl&ots=BCpPei0OKP&sig=KrzfQkYNMUPXb8PwBpRDwSVCjkw&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjygs2-pqDXAhUNPVAKHfW7Dy0Q6AEIQzAD#v=onepage&q=Domestic%20violence%20in%20classical%20canon%20law&f=false)
We are living in effeminate societies where the natural authority is undermined.
I congratulate Jaynek for her courage to defend men, it is rather uncommon.
In France, "dominant" women are called "femmes castratrices", in other words women who have a castrating effect on their husbands and their sons. It is devastating for men, and those women should be punished energetically.
-
I don't know if this helps or harms you, Ladislaus, but I think the distinctions you've made in this thread are things Catholics need to hear on a regular basis. They need to be preached from the pulpit and in adult catechism classes. Anytime a priest has the chance, he should take it. I was very hesitant to even click on this post (must be feeling brave today) but am happy I did. It restored a little bit of my faith in such threads.
I have many times observed the treatment you describe with the mentalities described. Thankfully my own husband is very considerate of me and it has done nothing but wonders for us as a couple, but he has a couple of brothers who tried to "educate" him when we were first married. In their eyes he was not to take my needs, opinions or concerns into consideration at all. They are by far not the only ones who become selfish, inconsiderate jerks and try to pass that off as part of their vocation as husbands. There are many good men out there to be sure, but there are also many whose concept of authority and how to wield it is quite warped. It's unfortunate because people in the world would use these as examples of how our Faith is misogynistic and harmful to women, when in fact women came to be well loved and better treated because of our Faith. But as always, the devil is in the details and it all greatly depends on the proper distinctions being made and understood.
It goes without saying but the Holy Family is a fascinating and beautiful example in so many ways.
Indeed, this attitude is all too common among Traditional Catholic men. And, ironically, it generally causes a reaction among their wives and women in general TOWARDS feminist attitudes. Conversely, the more respect and honor a husband shows to his wife, the more naturally inclined she is (if she's at all of good will) to be submissive. And, yes, some of these types have attempted to edumacate me about the matter as well. On the thread about wife-beating (aka "corporal punishment"), one of these guys called me a "pervert" (and a liberal, a fag, and various other assorted things) for holding that it's wrong for a husband to lay violent hands on his wife.
Good posts by both.
-
I once read a private revelation, maybe from St. Bridget, where Our Lord Jesus Christ said that when a man wished to prevent his wife from commiting adultery, he used every possible means, including threatening her or using corporal punishment; and likewise when God wishes to prevent us from commiting sin, He uses every possible means.
It is not a sin to slap one's wife when she has commited adultery or when she threatens to do it.
From everything that I have seen, this seems to be representative of the traditional Catholic view, something only questioned in recent decades. It seems strange to me to find people on trad forums calling people misogynists if we do not condemn and disagree with it. I have no problem with claims that it is not practical/prudent in our current situation; I tend toward that view myself. But there seems to be an insistence that we must repudiate the views of our ancestors and consider them as having sinned for believing and practicing such things. I do not see myself as qualified to do that.
There is already a current thread specifically addressing the question of corporal punishment, so I hope that subject does not take over this thread. They really are separate things. Misogyny can exist without corporal punishment. Corporal punishment can exist without misogyny.
-
Corporal punishment has always been a part of the natural order, but it is lawful only when the wife tries to prevail over her husband with much pride or when she commits great sins.
See here. (https://books.google.fr/books?id=sHlpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=Domestic+violence+in+classical+canon+law&source=bl&ots=BCpPei0OKP&sig=KrzfQkYNMUPXb8PwBpRDwSVCjkw&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjygs2-pqDXAhUNPVAKHfW7Dy0Q6AEIQzAD#v=onepage&q=Domestic%20violence%20in%20classical%20canon%20law&f=false)
Thanks for the fascinating citation. I had not seen this source before.
-
I don't know how representative forums are of the Trad community in general, but I see quite a large number of proud, hostile, uncharitable posts on just about every Trad forum I've ever visited or joined. Tons of bickering and quarreling and name calling. Probably some of those posts were made by trolls, but I'm sure many were by regular folks just being themselves. I don't know why there is so much fractiousness and lack of charity on so many Trad forums, but I think that attitude would likely contribute to misogynous tendencies.
-
I don't know how representative forums are of the Trad community in general, but I see quite a large number of proud, hostile, uncharitable posts on just about every Trad forum I've ever visited or joined. Tons of bickering and quarreling and name calling. Probably some of those posts were made by trolls, but I'm sure many were by regular folks just being themselves. I don't know why there is so much fractiousness and lack of charity on so many Trad forums, but I think that attitude would likely contribute to misogynous tendencies.
I've been involved in online discussion groups for around 25 years. I have seen that sort of behaviour on all of them. The only thing that seems to affect it is having moderators around to suppress it. It does not seem related to the religion or sex of the participants. I have encountered thoroughly nasty women, as well as men. It is admittedly troubling to see such things in Catholics, since we should know better, but not especially surprising.
I think it would be rather difficult to determine if any of the unpleasantness were specifically due to misogyny rather than the general human condition.
-
I suppose that in all fairness I should point out that many nonCatholic forums are rife with flaming and bickering and other forms of bad behavior, as well.
Regarding the relationship between misogyny and bad behavior in general on Trad forums, I agree with Jaynek that it would be difficult to determine the exact nature and extent of misogyny's role. I've no idea of the dynamics of how what gives rise to what, but I'm sure that misogygny is in there as part of the mix.
-
I've been thinking about this some more and I am leaning toward the view that Catholics should not even use the word "misogyny". It is a word, like "antisemitism" and "homophobia," which has been coined/appropriated to promote an anti-Catholic agenda. The word "misogyny" is, in recent times, primarily used to support the feminist view of the male-female relationship as a variation of Marxist class warfare. It is so important to resist that view that we need to avoid its typical terminology.
Feminism trains women to think of men as the enemy - violent, dangerous, threatening. For me, as a woman, I take a stand against feminism by consciously thinking well of men. This comes very easily for me, since I am married to a very good man and he is the man whom I know best.
One reason I don't have problems with the idea of the husband's authority is that I have complete trust that my husband would never misuse it. We have been married for 37 years and he has shown himself to consistently put my welfare before his own comfort and convenience. I trust him with the authority to command my obedience. I trust him with the right to the marriage debt. I would trust him, if we lived in a society that accepted a husband's right to use corporal punishment (as our ancestors in the Faith did), to use that right justly. I would trust him to give his life to save mine, if such a situation were to arise.
And my understanding of men is based on my husband. He is not simply an individual but the type through which I view men in general. I expect men, especially trad men, normally to be good people. I realize that there are exceptions. I know that there are men who do bad things. But they do these things, not because it is usual for male persons, but because it is a reflection of the fallen human condition.
It is very natural for me to extend my positive feelings about my husband toward men in general. I would probably do it to some extent without even thinking about it. However, I also make a conscious decision to think this way because I see it as a way of resisting feminism.
-
I did not state that men are superior to women. I said that this was the position of St. Thomas Aquinas and asked if you thought this made him a misogynist.
Could you please quote the specific citation from Saint Thomas? Thank you.
-
I've been thinking about this some more and I am leaning toward the view that Catholics should not even use the word "misogyny".
Couldn't disagree with you more. Misogyny is alive and well among Traditional Catholics ... and it needs to be called out for what it is and not white-washed as nothing more than the principled assertion of a husband's superiority of rank over his wife. Indeed, the modern world abuses this term in reference to the latter, but simply because the modern world misues it doesn't mean that it's not real. I've been called a misogynist by some extended family for simply stating that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood. But we're Traditional Catholics here and understand that it's not misogyny. Now, if you don't have a Catholic understanding of the priesthood, then you might easily think of it as misogyny. There was a guy at work who said that Catholics were misogynist for this reason. Once I explained to him what Catholic theology of the priesthood was, then he understood. I told him, "You obviously don't believe this, but just understand that we have serious theological reasons for why women can't be ordained priests." He then backed away understanding that, given the premises of Catholic theology, this was not misogynist.
Do you have an alternate term you'd like to propose?
-
Could you please quote the specific citation from Saint Thomas? Thank you.
The actual phrase used by St. Thomas is translated as "woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is defective and misbegotten," but people often paraphrase that as men are superior to women. Ladislaus reasonably pointed out that St. Thomas is a nuanced writer who makes careful distinctions. I should not have used a paraphrase, but rather an exact quote with enough context for the distinctions to be clear.
I should probably have quoted at least this much:
As regards the individual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm) nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm) observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) in general, woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) intention (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm) as directed to the work of generation.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm)
I apologize for my lack of clarity and any confusion I may have caused.
-
I apologize for my lack of clarity and any confusion I may have caused.
Wait your turn...
:)
-
Ladislaus, I meant what I said about not engaging in discussions with people who call me a liar. There is no point in conversing with a person who does not believe what I say.
I am willing to discuss this topic with you if you withdraw your accusation.
You were asking me a question that you already seemed to know the answer to. I therefore perceived it as trick question rather than a genuine request for information and refused to answer it. While it is possible that my perception was mistaken, I was telling the truth about how I saw it.
If you cannot accept my honesty, I see no way for us to communicate with each other.
-
I saw claims in another thread that misogyny is common among trads. I have not see this myself, but I have few opportunities to observe men outside my family. I haven't seen anything among the men I see at church that seems wrong. On forums, I have seen men expressing anger and frustration with feminism, but I don't think this is misogyny.
I am starting a new thread because this topic seems tangential to the thread where I saw the claims. Also it was in the anonymous sub-forum which I really dislike.
our society is still misogynistic
women are expected to subservient to men. I feel that is more pronounced in the Midwest than maybe other places. I am just going off my own experiences/observations
-
our society is still misogynistic
women are expected to subservient to men. I feel that is more pronounced in the Midwest than maybe other places. I am just going off my own experiences/observations
The Church teaches that a wife is subject to her husband. Are you saying that this is misogynistic?
-
The actual phrase used by St. Thomas is translated as "woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is defective and misbegotten," but people often paraphrase that as men are superior to women. Ladislaus reasonably pointed out that St. Thomas is a nuanced writer who makes careful distinctions. I should not have used a paraphrase, but rather an exact quote with enough context for the distinctions to be clear.
I should probably have quoted at least this much:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm)
I apologize for my lack of clarity and any confusion I may have caused.
Of course, by defect, St. Thomas doesn't mean that female nature is positively defective ... with the connotations of the modern English term which implies a positive disorder. Defective means lacking or falling short, or, incomplete in a way, compared to the male nature. Male nature is more complete. We have to be careful in telling people that female nature is "defective" because that could easily be misunderstood as misogynist. There was no defect in Our Blessed Mother ... not in the sense that this word connotes in modern English.
-
And my understanding of men is based on my husband. He is not simply an individual but the type through which I view men in general. I expect men, especially trad men, normally to be good people. I realize that there are exceptions. I know that there are men who do bad things. But they do these things, not because it is usual for male persons, but because it is a reflection of the fallen human condition.
It is very natural for me to extend my positive feelings about my husband toward men in general. I would probably do it to some extent without even thinking about it. However, I also make a conscious decision to think this way because I see it as a way of resisting feminism.
Thank you for explaining your rather bizarre behavior on this topic.
Evidently, you live in a bubble and have illogically extended your personal experience to the Trads around you. You should get out more.
You have no idea of what is "usual for male persons."
I think if you had any idea of what your fellow churchgoers were capable of and what your fellow wives were subjected to, you would change your tune.
-
I saw claims in another thread that misogyny is common among trads. I have not see this myself, but I have few opportunities to observe men outside my family. I haven't seen anything among the men I see at church that seems wrong. On forums, I have seen men expressing anger and frustration with feminism, but I don't think this is misogyny.
I am starting a new thread because this topic seems tangential to the thread where I saw the claims. Also it was in the anonymous sub-forum which I really dislike.
What does misogyny mean to you?
Does Gen 3:16 sound misogynist when God punished woman:
"To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
-
Does Gen 3:16 sound misogynist when God punished woman:
"To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
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.
-
Thank you for explaining your rather bizarre behavior on this topic.
Evidently, you live in a bubble and have illogically extended your personal experience to the Trads around you. You should get out more.
You have no idea of what is "usual for male persons."
I think if you had any idea of what your fellow churchgoers were capable of and what your fellow wives were subjected to, you would change your tune.
And there's obviously an "overcompensation" in the "resistance to feminism". I speculated about this earlier, that, having been a feminist, now she's overreacting in the other direction. We see that a LOT among Traditional Catholics. You see something wrong in the Novus Ordo and you react TOO FAR in the other direction, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. But, no, she can't be that incredibly naive to think that all men are like her husband. It's a mental construct that's there as a coping mechanism due to regrets for certain past behaviors. It almost comes across as a kind of self-loathing, usually rooted in pride ... except that it's being extended towards other women as well.
-
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.
I noticed you also replied in the "vegan" thread. Do you believe trying to correct a man is good?
And most women, even those who claim to be Catholic, need reminding of their duties from God.
-
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]
-
Thank you for explaining your rather bizarre behavior on this topic.
Evidently, you live in a bubble and have illogically extended your personal experience to the Trads around you. You should get out more.
You have no idea of what is "usual for male persons."
I think if you had any idea of what your fellow churchgoers were capable of and what your fellow wives were subjected to, you would change your tune.
I quite clearly wrote, "I know that there are men who do bad things," in the post to which you are responding. It is a misrepresentation of my position to claim that I do not realize that.
And you seem to have misunderstood my comment, "But they do these things, not because it is usual for male persons, but because it is a reflection of the fallen human condition." This was not a statement about the frequency of abuse but about its cause. I was saying that the sinful human nature which men and women share leads to abuse, rather than there being something especially monstrous and evil about men.
-
I think if you had any idea of what your fellow churchgoers were capable of and what your fellow wives were subjected to, you would change your tune.
Indeed. I see this all the time, and my heart breaks for the women who suffer at the hands like this. And my problem with Jaynek is that she turns a blind eye to it and gives the impression of condoning all manner of bad behavior by men towards their wives ... invariably blaming the woman for any problems that might be there in the relationship.
-
Evidently, you live in a bubble and have illogically extended your personal experience to the Trads around you. You should get out more.
(https://s-lite.qwant.com/thumbr/266x200/8/7/1bed1a94a89ccfa3a5b6fe45bde1e2/b_1_q_0_p_0.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lZoJdthUsrI%2FVsHoQCNWTnI%2FAAAAAAAAQwM%2F-EkHDcE4_hA%2Fs1600%2Fphoto4158.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0&b_id=OIP.XoX74qEBQ-K8klboIgtUzgEsDh)
-
I noticed you also replied in the "vegan" thread. Do you believe trying to correct a man is good?
And most women, even those who claim to be Catholic, need reminding of their duties from God.
I am sorry if I seemed like I was trying to correct you.
-
I was saying that the sinful human nature which men and women share leads to abuse, rather than there being something especially monstrous and evil about men.
Talk about misrepresenting our position. Who EVER said that there's "something especially monstrous and evil about men". Answer: nobody. You're somehow projecting the radical feminist contempt for men in general (misandry) onto us. What we're saying is that a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER of men use "subjection theology" as an excuse to abuse their wives ... emotionally, spiritually, and sometimes physically, and that you appear to be playing right into that. I see the Anonymous blowhard, for instance, being encouraged by all of your comments. That is precisely THE kind of man I see out there abusing his wife, and you're merely encouraging him.
-
I am sorry if I seemed like I was trying to correct you.
Ma'am, don't fall for this; it's bullshit.
Also, woman or man, rememember "Error has no rights."
-
Ma'am, don't fall for this; it's bullshit.
Also, woman or man, rememember "Error has no rights."
I'm pretty sure "error has no rights" is talking about doctrinal error so it wouldn't apply in a discussion about food. But this is not an area I know much about.
And I really do care about not coming across as correcting men when I express disagreement although I sometimes get carried away in a discussion.
-
I am sorry if I seemed like I was trying to correct you.
Well, St. Catherine of Siena used to excoriate Pope Gregory XI for being away from Rome in Avignon, referring to him as a "timorous child" and not "manly" She would begin by bowing, kneeling, kissing his ring, showing him the due respect ... before giving him a good tongue-lashing. Women have their own minds and are entitled to their own opinions. Men who are WRONG about something should welcome "correction" by a woman. But the tone should still remain respectful and deferential overall.
-
I'm pretty sure "error has no rights" is talking about doctrinal error so it wouldn't apply in a discussion about food. But this is not an area I know much about.
And I really do care about not coming across as correcting men when I express disagreement although I sometimes get carried away in a discussion.
Never mind ma'am.
Have "fun".
-
Ma'am, don't fall for this; it's bullshit.
Also, woman or man, rememember "Error has no rights."
Yes and no. Women are perfectly entitled to express their opinions and to DISAGREE with men about something. "Correction" implies talking down to someone as if you're their superior. I believe that the former is perfectly permissible, but the latter improper. So it's not about the substance (e.g. the purported error), but rather about the tone.
-
I am currently reading Herman Melville's "Moby Dick".
"Misogyny" is analogous to the Great Whale - it is being hunted but not found, although in the Gregory Peck movie version the great white whale sinks the boat taking everyone down with them - I haven't finished the book so no spoilers please! I am finding the book to be an amazing read. I expected to find it dull or stagnant or plodding but it's humorous, refreshing and insightful. In our lives, the whale of misogyny is one we all are hunting with eagerness, seeing signs of it everywhere but proof of it hardly anywhere at all.
The concept of misogyny is a real head's women win, tails men lose, and those who stood on the sidelines and watched the coin toss without taking the woman's side are also guilty as charged. Misogyny, as contemporary society practices it, is much worse than hunting the whale, it's used as a political weapon, not much different that the "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question.
Having said that, I myself have never seen any misogyny in the Traditional Catholic World.
-
I am currently reading Herman Melville's "Moby Dick".
"Misogyny" is analogous to the Great Whale - it is being hunted but not found, although in the Gregory Peck movie version the great white whale sinks the boat taking everyone down with them - I haven't finished the book so no spoilers please! I am finding the book to be an amazing read. I expected to find it dull or stagnant or plodding but it's humorous, refreshing and insightful. In our lives, the whale of misogyny is one we all are hunting with eagerness, seeing signs of it everywhere but proof of it hardly anywhere at all.
The concept of misogyny is a real head's women win, tails men lose, and those who stood on the sidelines and watched the coin toss without taking the woman's side are also guilty as charged. Misogyny, as contemporary society practices it, is much worse than hunting the whale, it's used as a political weapon, not much different that the "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question.
Having said that, I myself have never seen any misogyny in the Traditional Catholic World.
Stand by to be accused of being blind, a liar, or some such other effort to negate your personal experience.
-
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.
I figured I should include a quote from the Summa (First Part (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm) . Question 92. Art 1) since my summary did not really capture his nuances and distinctions.
Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm); and this kind of subjection existed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) even before sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). For good (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm) order would have been wanting in the human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) family (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05782a.htm) if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) is naturally (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) subject to man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), because in man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) the discretion of reason predominates.
-
Ma'am, don't fall for this; it's bullshit.
Also, woman or man, remember "Error has no rights."
What's B.S.?
Women and men have different roles and women are to be subservient as men are to be leaders. This is the Catholic way.
Boys and men have become effeminized due to women being propped up as being equal to men. Women are taught to be equal to men so that in marriage there is no clear leader and the likelihood of boys becoming queers and girls becoming lesbians is greater. That's why idea of women voting is morally wrong because a woman should never vote against her husband.
1 Tim 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."
-
Tradosaurus, could you please explain how this applies to women on forums?
-
What's B.S.? ...
I noticed you also replied in the "vegan" thread. Do you believe trying to correct a man is good?
And most women, even those who claim to be Catholic, need reminding of their duties from God.
... Women and men have different roles...
>>> Generally
and women are to be subservient as men are to be leaders.
>>> Always?
This is the Catholic way.
>>> Generally
Boys and men have become effeminized
>>> Generally
due to women being propped up as being equal
>>> Define "equal"
to men.
>>> Lone gunman?
Women are taught to be equal
>>> There's that word again...
to men so that in marriage there is no clear leader and the likelihood of boys becoming queers and girls becoming lesbians is greater.
>>> Sole objective?
That's why idea of women voting is morally wrong
>>> While I haven't made a complete examination and breakdown of this assertion, if required to answer now I'd have to concur on this point. At the very least "It don't work", it hasn't worked, and I see zero indication of it ever working, at least to any good end.
because a woman should never vote against her husband.
>>> See, this is where the former qualification and reservation comes in. Example: what if her husband was voting for an objective evil, and the female had opportunity counteract it with her own? Again, I haven't broken this question down completely; it may be inherently wrong itself, but the question is there.
1 Tim 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."
>>> Speaking of exams and breakdowns, have you bothered to look into what the Church says about this? For instance, I hope you don't mind really stupid, short lived kids oh lord of the manor, and trad manner, born. She know ASL? Kind of a bummer, because I kinda like women's voices sometimes, depending on what they're expressing.
-
Posted by: DZ PLEASE
« on: Today at 01:48:24 AM »
1 Tim 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."
>>> Speaking of exams and breakdowns, have you bothered to look into what the Church says about this? For instance, I hope you don't mind really stupid, short lived kids oh lord of the manor, and trad manner, born. She know ASL? Kind of a bummer, because I kinda like women's voices sometimes, depending on what they're expressing.
You must enjoy swooping in on conversations with women and playing the white knight.
A Catholic forum would not allow women to converse with men. The women should have their own section of the forum while the men can debate or discuss issues.
This is the Catholic way. And the continuation of 1 Tim 2:12 sheds more light on what the Catholic Church teaches. Basically, because woman caused the fall (was in the transgression) they are to worry about matters of the household, being a good wife and mother, and not acting like a man.
1 Tim 2: 11-15 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
-
You must enjoy swooping in on conversations with women and playing the white knight.
>>> You must really enjoy introducing irrelevancies and rash attribution of motives.
A Catholic forum would not allow women to converse with men.
>>> Way to excommunicate, Your Holiness.
The women should have their own section of the forum while the men can debate or discuss issues.
>>> According to...? (hint, not you.)
This is the Catholic way.
>>> (see prev.)
And the continuation of 1 Tim 2:12 sheds more light on what the Catholic Church teaches.
>>> (etc...)
...
>>> Maybe this should be continued after you forsake the non-Catholic methodology, or at least show how it isn't; of course, that would be that requested, but whatever.
>>> Gratuitous offering likewise refused, either way; next?
-
You must enjoy swooping in on conversations with women and playing the white knight.
A Catholic forum would not allow women to converse with men. The women should have their own section of the forum while the men can debate or discuss issues.
This is the Catholic way. And the continuation of 1 Tim 2:12 sheds more light on what the Catholic Church teaches. Basically, because woman caused the fall (was in the transgression) they are to worry about matters of the household, being a good wife and mother, and not acting like a man.
1 Tim 2: 11-15 Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
PS, and speaking of "Catholic way", I've reported this for the sole aim of enabling the site owners to defend themselves against your charges.
Only one of them is a woman (oh please let that not be a false assumption) BTW, so unless you wish to additionally charge me with being a "Bi-Knight"...
-
tradsaurus is not entirely incorrect -- the number of women who are capable of objectively discussing issues, without emotion is quite small.
But then again, in 2017, the number of men who can abstract from themselves and discuss ideas without emotion is ALSO, unfortunately, quite small. Perhaps a slightly larger number, but there are still men who emote rather than think. So even if I made CathInfo "men only", I would still have to moderate the forum. So it wouldn't solve anything. In the practical realm, I've had to ban equal numbers of both (though I have no exact figures).
So I'm just having mercy on the whole lot of humanity by providing a Traditional Catholic Forum where all traditional Catholics can stay in touch with what's going on, discuss important issues, etc. It has been, and is going to be, a lot of work.
But from time to time, I'm forcibly reminded why some Trad fora are "men only". But I could say the same thing about sedevacantists -- some of them are quite dogmatic and rude about it, they love to argue about it constantly, they anathematize their opponents, etc. But the ones currently on CI don't match that description, or they would be gone. We've "collected" quite a few sane ones. Likewise, we've collected quite a number of women who can discuss things without getting bent out of shape, who aren't Feminist, etc.
But as a matter of fact, the MAJORITY seem to have no problem being a member of an online discussion forum. That is why -- in both cases -- I'm OK with "opt out" rather than "opt in" membership, since the number of good eggs vastly outnumbers the number of bad. In other words, I find it easier to ban the few problem members than to restrict membership and selectively "white list" a few members. That system has worked for 11 years and counting, so I'm not about to change it.
I have separate Mens and Womens forums for more sensitive matters, and that seems to be a perfect solution. Allow everyone on the forum, but give each sex a place to discuss topics which can't really be discussed in mixed company.
So enjoy your conversation, may the best argument win, but please leave ME out of it. There is no need to come crying to mommy (or daddy) in the hopes of getting "parental weight" behind your argument. Just duke it out among yourselves, OK?
-
tradsaurus is not entirely incorrect -- the number of women who are capable of objectively discussing issues, without emotion is quite small.
But then again, in 2017, the number of men who can abstract from themselves and discuss ideas without emotion is ALSO, unfortunately, quite small. Perhaps a slightly larger number, but there are still men who emote rather than think.
As a woman, I see the situation the way that Matthew does, so he is not just saying that because he is a man. We live in a culture that promotes feeling over thinking and subjective over objective. It even affects men.
While I don't think Scripture means that women should not be on forums and I have my husband's permission to participate, I can respect tradosaurus's view to some extent. I will refrain from addressing any comments to him.
-
A Catholic forum would not allow women to converse with men. The women should have their own section of the forum while the men can debate or discuss issues.
I don't know, man. I would have given my right arm to converse with St. Therese of Lisieux or St. Theresa of Avila or a large number of other women. Women can have a great deal to offer. I don't know that there's any strict prohibition on women making their thoughts known to men or even disagreeing with them. Typically when men cop this attitude, it's a combination of 1) feeling threatened by women and 2) rigorous scrupulosity with regard to the Scripture passages cited.
Men can easily feel threatened if a woman is superior to them in some way. So, if a woman has greater intelligence or virtue or some other quality, a man can feel inferior ... and that can be difficult when women are supposed to be their subordinates in the order of nature. But we can look to St. Joseph there. He had authority over God and the Mother of God and was, I'm sure, constantly aware of his inferiority.
-
tradsaurus is not entirely incorrect -- the number of women who are capable of objectively discussing issues, without emotion is quite small.
You talked about the behavior of men and women on the forum, Matthew, but what think you about tradsaurus' allegation that men and women should not interact this way IN PRINCIPLE?
-
I don't know, man. I would have given my right arm to converse with St. Therese of Lisieux or St. Theresa of Avila or a large number of other women. Women can have a great deal to offer. I don't know that there's any strict prohibition on women making their thoughts known to men or even disagreeing with them. Typically when men cop this attitude, it's a combination of 1) feeling threatened by women and 2) rigorous scrupulosity with regard to the Scripture passages cited.
Men can easily feel threatened if a woman is superior to them in some way. So, if a woman has greater intelligence or virtue or some other quality, a man can feel inferior ... and that can be difficult when women are supposed to be their subordinates in the order of nature. But we can look to St. Joseph there. He had authority over God and the Mother of God and was, I'm sure, constantly aware of his inferiority.
Differences aside, credit where due.
Who finds error in this quote? I don't see it.
-
Differences aside, credit where due.
Who finds error in this quote? I don't see it.
I am rather sceptical of this idea about men feeling threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc. I have never seen a man say this about himself. Usually the accusation comes up in an ad hominem argument to avoid addressing the actual topic under debate. It seems to be a knee jerk response to any mention of male authority or superiority. I am not going to believe in these alleged threatened men until a man tells me that is how he feels.
-
I am rather sceptical of this idea about men feeling threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc. I have never seen a man say this about himself. Usually the accusation comes up in an ad hominem argument to avoid addressing the actual topic under debate. It seems to be a knee jerk response to any mention of male authority or superiority. I am not going to believe in these alleged threatened men until a man tells me that is how he feels.
You'll likely be waiting a long time there ma'am, even if we are actually aware of being issued a feeling of any variety.
-
I am rather sceptical of this idea about men feeling threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc. I have never seen a man say this about himself. Usually the accusation comes up in an ad hominem argument to avoid addressing the actual topic under debate. It seems to be a knee jerk response to any mention of male authority or superiority. I am not going to believe in these alleged threatened men until a man tells me that is how he feels.
You'll likely be waiting a long time there ma'am, even if we are actually aware of being issued a feeling of any variety.
I was thinking much the same thing. (If I understand DZP correctly.) JayneK, even if a man could ever admit to himself that he feels threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc, he would certainly never admit it to others.
-
I am rather sceptical of this idea about men feeling threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc.
As you've already demonstrated, you appear to live under a rock. I see it all the time. You've never seen or heard of a Trad man mistreating his wife either. Either that or the bar for "mistreatment" is so ridiculously high (just short of hospitalizing a woman?) in your mind that you can rightly say you've never seen it.
-
JayneK, even if a man could ever admit to himself that he feels threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc, he would certainly never admit it to others.
And, even if he can't admit it to himself, people around him can see it and sense it.
Absolutely, JayneK will be waiting a long time before he'd admit it ... especially to a woman. MAYBE to his wife or something ... if the man is honest enough. But that would be it.
-
I was thinking much the same thing. (If I understand DZP correctly.) JayneK, even if a man could ever admit to himself that he feels threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc, he would certainly never admit it to others.
Thanks ma'am, but that "certain" bit takes it too far the other way; what that is essentially saying is that we're incapable of acting in humility, at least in this regard.
Also, I wasn't even getting to the self-admission bit yet; the mere awareness of these... "feeling" things of which ya'll speak is often a labor all unto itself.
I'm "certain" that most any female, if upon reflection, knows this to be so; we certainly hear loads of hen-cluck about it for it to be otherwise.
-
As you've already demonstrated, you appear to live under a rock. I see it all the time. You've never seen or heard of a Trad man mistreating his wife either. Either that or the bar for "mistreatment" is so ridiculously high (just short of hospitalizing a woman?) in your mind that you can rightly say you've never seen it.
Do you hate her for some reason?
-
I was thinking much the same thing. (If I understand DZP correctly.) JayneK, even if a man could ever admit to himself that he feels threatened by women who are more intelligent, etc, he would certainly never admit it to others.
I agree it is unlikely. Nevertheless the people who claim to have observed this have not done so. It is not possible to observe feelings. We observe actions and deduce or project the feelings that underlie them. People who think they have seen men feeling threatened think that as much because of their own assumptions as because of what they have actually seen.
I have seen many instances of someone dismissing a man's words with "You are just saying that because you feel threatened by women." And I have seen no sign at all that he actually felt this way. In my experience, the accusation far exceeds the reality.
The only man I know well enough for him to have shared his feelings on this is my husband. He is definitely not threatened by women having more intelligence, etc. than he does.
-
Do you hate her for some reason?
Maybe he feels threatened by me. ;D
-
Maybe he feels threatened by me. ;D
I feel threatened by dust-bunnies, for example; therefore I"d best not throw stones, which are also pretty scary now that I think about it so, time for my meds and then under the bed with me.
-
It is not possible to observe feelings. We observe actions and deduce or project the feelings that underlie them. People who think they have seen men feeling threatened think that as much because of their own assumptions as because of what they have actually seen.
Hogwash. In many cases, you can very accurately deduce these feelings based on things people say or how they say them or even from how they react to certain things. You must have very poor people skills, Jaynek. I know lots of people who can practically read the minds of others from their behavior and from what they say and how they say it. I'm very good at this myself.
-
Do you hate her for some reason?
Not at all. I'm adamantly opposed to the ideas that she's promoting here on CI. Men are not personal about such things. In fact, I objected to the tradosaur who wanted her and other women silenced ... simply for being women. If I would want her to keep silent, it's only because I consider her opinions to be harmful ... and not because she's a woman. I very much prefer intelligent women -- and I married accordingly.
-
Maybe he feels threatened by me. ;D
Hardly. I can be very forceful in arguing my ideas. You should see me going after the guys over in the Crisis forum. I mince no words. And men don't take things personally. DZ should know that. If I met you, I'd probably say hello with a smile ... whereas many women would probably never speak to each other again after exchanges like this.
As for being threatened, I much prefer intelligent women, which is why I married the woman I did. As pretty and kind and sweet as a woman might be (and my wife is all those things and more), it would drive me crazy if I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with her about things that matter to me.
-
There really is no point in trying to talk to a person who thinks he can read minds. He responds to what he imagines one is thinking rather than what one has plainly said. He makes up things about one's motives rather than addressing actual arguments. When one explains what one was actually thinking or feeling, he accuses one of lying, for he believes he knows a person's thoughts better than the person himself.
Attempting to communicate with people like this is merely an exercise in frustration. I recommend that everyone avoid this situation as much as possible.
Perhaps I should add this to the "How not to post in debates" thread.
-
There really is no point in trying to talk to a person who thinks he can read minds. He responds to what he imagines one is thinking rather than what one has plainly said.
Nonsense. You can make valid inferences from things like tone and body language and even the choice of words/phrases that someone decides to use, words which have connotations. There's a ton of non-verbal communication between human beings. So, for instance, I can write something here on CI that could be construed as a harsh criticism whereas it might have in fact been a light-hearted tongue-in-cheek comment. But if I were to say the same thing in person ... with a smile ... it would be understood as the light-hearted joke that it was. That's why they invented emoticons or emojis for written communication. If your tone might otherwise be ambiguous, you use one of those. But in normal human communication, there's a lot of non-verbal information that is valid nonetheless.
-
There really is no point in trying to talk to a person who thinks he can read minds. He responds to what he imagines one is thinking rather than what one has plainly said. He makes up things about one's motives rather than addressing actual arguments. ... Attempting to communicate with people like this is merely an exercise in frustration. I recommend that everyone avoid this situation as much as possible.
...
Yes ma'am and, pretty-please, likewise.
-
When the bible says that "husband" is the head of the family, he best understand, that he, the husband must answer to "who", Our God of course! A wife is in understanding of this. Both must help each other to be a saint. A husband can not ask or imply the family to sin. Then he is out of place. He the husband is to treat his wife as Christ's Church. That says a lot! If he does not, the wife , according to the bible, Gods' words, is to approach her husband. Then she can ask for a witness or 2 others to approach him.
The Law says, treat your neighbor as yourself. That goes for any one. Yes, a husband should be the head of the home. He best have a Rosary with the family, he best do as Christ would Love His Church. Again, it goes for either wife or husband.
When we spank our children, it is to bring to light and a reminder of their evil behavior, and spanking is mortification and can be an embarrassment to the child. I will slap a child's hand before they touch an outlet, out of love!
To slap a wife with adultery or husband does not take care of the issue in the soul and mind of that person that you can not see. A priest does not slap penitents, Our Lady would not approach a sinner in this way either.
When people say no to God and do their own thing, and are in Mortal Sin, slapping and such does not make things right. Only would cause drift and parting.
-
Guess it was a good thing that bishops quit giving confirmands the "Pope Hand" then.
-
To slap a wife with adultery or husband does not take care of the issue in the soul and mind of that person that you can not see. A priest does not slap penitents, Our Lady would not approach a sinner in this way either.
When people say no to God and do their own thing, and are in Mortal Sin, slapping and such does not make things right. Only would cause drift and parting.
St Thomas Aquinas says that it is permissible to whip a wife for adultery. Are you so confident in your opinions that you would disagree with him? As far as I can tell his teaching is what the Church taught for most of her history.
I am not advising anyone to try this now. It is clearly imprudent in our circuмstances. But I do not understand how anyone feels qualified to say that millions of past Catholics were wrong about this. We are supposed to be traditional Catholics here. We don't just cite a couple of Bible verses and use that as justification to ignore traditional teaching and practices.
-
Christ is above St. Thomas. Mary Magdalene was not whipped. Men were ready to stone her. Will you go over Christ's head Jaynek.
-
Christ is above St. Thomas. Mary Magdalene was not whipped. Men were ready to stone her. Will you go over Christ's head Jaynek.
Obviously St Thomas is not above Christ. But St Thomas had a much better understanding of Scripture than you do and realized that Our Lord never gave a command which forbids the punishing of adultery. In fact, He acknowledged that the Old Testament law which deemed it punishable by death was still in effect. He showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery; He did not change the law at that time.
You really shouldn't be trying to interpret Scripture for yourself like this. You don't seem to have the training for it. Besides, it is a Protestant way of approaching the issue.
-
Obviously St Thomas is not above Christ. But St Thomas had a much better understanding of Scripture than you do and realized that Our Lord never gave a command which forbids the punishing of adultery. In fact, He acknowledged that the Old Testament law which deemed it punishable by death was still in effect. He showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery; He did not change the law at that time.
You really shouldn't be trying to interpret Scripture for yourself like this. You don't seem to have the training for it. Besides, it is a Protestant way of approaching the issue.
Careful ma'am, or be as fun-at-parties "popular" as I...
Kidding aside, even a careful solo read (not that one should) of any "version" or translation that I know of doesn't do for her what she wishes. (presuming that she is correct in equating this woman with S. Mary Magdalene; I've not seen anything absolutely conclusive; if not, it would be handy to know exactly what she is referring. It really isn't necessary either way for this point)
But, just one example from one far better (emph./form/layout DZ P);
He did not say, "Stone her not", lest He should seem to speak contrary to the law; but God forbid that He should say, "Stone her". For He came not to destroy that which He found, but to seek that which was lost. What then did He answer? "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". This is the voice of justice. Let the sinner be punished, but not by sinners; the law carried into effect, but not by transgressors of the law.
S. Augustine, Tract. XXXIII 5
Please don't any let this be cause for recommencement of more rhetoric, sophistry, and backpedaling.
-
... know exactly what she is referring to. ...
-
It's going to be ironic, if unsurprising, to get beat over the head with "DON'T JUDGE!"
-
There is some precedent for identifying the woman caught in adultery with St. Mary Magdalene, but the Church has not taught this definitively and we are free to think otherwise.
I wanted to tell songbird some background before but did not have time. This story tells of another attempt by the Pharisees to trap our Lord. The law which they were pretending to follow stated that both the man and woman were supposed to be stoned. Bringing only the woman was unjust and the crowd knew it. If Our Lord had said to stone her they would have thought He was unjust. If He had said to release her the Pharisees would have claimed that Our Lord was setting Himself against the Law. Our Lord outsmarted them by choosing neither option.
His words "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" do not mean that sins may never be punished. They do not mean that adultery may never be punished. He was addressing people who were misusing and manipulating the Law for evil motives. They had no right to punish.
-
Two words as a starting point, for any sincere; "Catena Aurea"
-
There is some precedent for identifying the woman caught in adultery with St. Mary Magdalene, but the Church has not taught this definitively and we are free to think otherwise.
I wanted to tell songbird some background before but did not have time. This story tells of another attempt by the Pharisees to trap our Lord. The law which they were pretending to follow stated that both the man and woman were supposed to be stoned. Bringing only the woman was unjust and the crowd knew it. If Our Lord had said to stone her they would have thought He was unjust. If He had said to release her the Pharisees would have claimed that Our Lord was setting Himself against the Law. Our Lord outsmarted them by choosing neither option.
His words "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" do not mean that sins may never be punished. They do not mean that adultery may never be punished. He was addressing people who were misusing and manipulating the Law for evil motives. They had no right to punish.
Additionally, is it possible that at least one of these would-be "stoners", were on the wrong end of the rock?
-
St Thomas Aquinas says that it is permissible to whip a wife for adultery. Are you so confident in your opinions that you would disagree with him?
Why yes, yes I am. I also disagree with him about the Immaculate Conception.
-
Songbird, please do not be confused by Lad's comment. It is one thing to disagree with St. Thomas based on a dogma of the Church and another when it is based on one's personal interpretation of Scripture.
St Thomas was a Doctor of the Church and one of the most brilliant men in the history of mankind. Disagreeing with him is not something to take lightly.
-
Songbird, please do not be confused by Lad's comment. It is one thing to disagree with St. Thomas based on a dogma of the Church and another when it is based on one's personal interpretation of Scripture.
St Thomas was a Doctor of the Church and one of the most brilliant men in the history of mankind. Disagreeing with him is not something to take lightly.
I love it how everyone here on CI puffs up all the authorities that happen to agree with their position: "one of the most brilliant men in the history of mankind". I disagree with St. Thomas and I have explained why. It's not based on a personal interpretation of Scripture but on analogies with other moral principles ... e.g. how it's abhorrent to strike one's parent. I argue that it's due to the "honor" that we owe them ... as per the 4th Commandment. But were are likewise required to honor our wives. I argue that striking one's wife, which is an extremely degrading act, is not consistent with "honor". I laid out how it's abhorrent to strike one's parents due to this requirement to honor them rather than because they're our superiors. If a simple subordinate struck a superior (e.g. a soldier striking his commanding officer), while that would be wrong in most circuмstances, it's not abhorrent as it is in the case of parents. And that's due to this missing ingredient of "honor". St. Thomas Aquinas did not consider the "honor" factor but treated the husband-wife relationship as a simple superior-subordinate relationship. Because he did not take this into account, I think he was mistaken. Despite Jaynek's lavish praise of St. Thomas, which is not undeserved but is little more than a self-serving cynical attempt on her part to bolster her position, St. Thomas is not infallible and is known to have been mistaken on quite a few points (one informal survey, if I recall, found about 4 dozen such errors).
Jaynek has an agenda. It would be one thing if she simply argued this point, but it's become clear that she is a misogynist ... due to regrets for various misdeed in her feminist past. Consequently, she has refused to admit the fact that there exist any men among Traditional Catholics who degrade and dishonor their wives by taking this "subjection" theology too far. Every time I cite examples of how this can be abused, Jaynek justifies and condones the behavior of the man and blames the woman. She's essentially a self-hating woman who's swung too far to the other extreme in reaction to her prior feminist leanings. She likes to beat up on herself but then won't take into account that she's implicitly beating up on other women as well ... and encouraging the misosgynist Trad wife abusers (yes, these do exist and I have met quite a few of them).
Guess what, Jaynek, nobody's really going to listen to you. None of us who believe that we should honor our wives and not degrade them like children by beating them is going to suddenly start beating our wife. There's no REQUIREMENT anywhere in Church teaching or in the teaching of St. Thomas to beat our wives. So I'm not going to beat my wife. You can argue all you want til you're blue in the face. You won't change any of our minds. So the only thing you're accomplishing is condoning, enabling, and abetting the abuse of women by the men who use your position as justification for their abuse. Congratulations.
-
I ask that everyone judge me based on my actual words that I have written, not on what Ladislaus says of me. He badly misrepresents my views and makes things up about my motives. While I prefer not to engage with him directly, I do want to go on record that virtually everything he writes about me is false. Apparently he prefers to attempt to discredit me than to logically debate ideas.
-
I ask that everyone judge me based on my actual words that I have written, not on what Ladislaus says of me. He badly misrepresents my views and makes things up about my motives. While I prefer not to engage with him directly, I do want to go on record that virtually everything he writes about me is false. Apparently he prefers to attempt to discredit me than to logically debate ideas.
I speculated about your motives early on, and you confirmed them in a later post. In my previous post, I reiterated my argument (i.e. I'm not avoiding logical debate). As for your insistence that women are almost always at fault, that's evident from your posting history. You imply that there's no such thing as a Traditional Catholic misogynist husband by claiming that you've never met one. Finally, the consequences of your agenda are clear for all to see .. the encouragement of abuse against women.
-
I love it how everyone
>> Which would include this quoted
here on CI puffs up
>> Exaggerates like a girl
all the authorities that happen to agree with their position: "one of the most brilliant men in the history of mankind". I disagree with St. Thomas and I have explained why. It's not based on a personal interpretation of Scripture but on analogies with other moral principles ... e.g. how it's abhorrent to strike one's parent. I argue that it's due to the "honor" that we owe them ... as per the 4th Commandment. But were are likewise required to honor our wives. I argue that striking one's wife, which is an extremely degrading act, is not consistent with "honor". I laid out how it's abhorrent to strike one's parents due to this requirement to honor them rather than because they're our superiors. If a simple subordinate struck a superior (e.g. a soldier striking his commanding officer), while that would be wrong in most circuмstances, it's not abhorrent as it is in the case of parents. And that's due to this missing ingredient of "honor". St. Thomas Aquinas did not consider the "honor" factor but treated the husband-wife relationship as a simple superior-subordinate relationship. Because he did not take this into account, I think he was mistaken.
>> Blah blah, blahblahblahblah
Despite Jaynek's lavish praise of St. Thomas,
>> Wonder why? Is it just her?
which is not undeserved
>> Well, that's nice.
but is little more than a self-serving cynical
>> We gonna hear about "Electra" next?
attempt on her part to bolster her position,
>> etc...
St. Thomas is not infallible
>> So?
and is known to have been mistaken on quite a few points (one informal survey, if I recall, found about 4 dozen such errors).
>> So?
Jaynek has an agenda.
>> Who doesn't?
It would be one thing if she simply argued this point,
>> Didn't she? Poll?
but it's become clear that she is a misogynist
>> Perhaps it's because her dad didn't get her that pony, or his playing golf triggered "penis envy"
...
>>> enough. Good to get those assessment confirmed though. Despicable.
>>> And some here call her a Jєω? Sounds like someone bought Freud's couch at auction.
-
St. Thomas has been a hero of mine ever since I took an introduction to the Summa course in 1998. My youngest son is named after him. My admiration of him is not a rhetorical device but a longstanding, deep feeling. I daresay I could find references to this throughout my posting history if anyone wants proof.
-
St. Thomas has been a hero of mine ever since I took an introduction to the Summa course in 1998. My youngest son is named after him. My admiration of him is not a rhetorical device but a longstanding, deep feeling. I daresay I could find references to this throughout my posting history if anyone wants proof.
ma'am, I think that some here are playing off of what seems to be your good nature; again, don't fall for this.
You haven't done or said anything wrong here. Can't say the same about your detractors.
-
Jaynek is a "free thinker". Well, I guess she finally gave herself away and where Christ is in her "free thinking" ways!
-
This "place" threatens to become the "Mos Eisley" of "Traddom".
Unbelievable.
-
Jaynek is a "free thinker". Well, I guess she finally gave herself away and where Christ is in her "free thinking" ways!
:confused:
I don't even know what you are talking about. I do my very best to conform my views to the mind of the Church. If anyone sees me failing to do that, please correct me. But don't expect me to accept your personal opinions and Scripture interpretations as if they were Church teaching. As far as I know, nobody here speaks for Christ.
I find it ironic that these people who are portraying themselves as defenders of women are making so many personal attacks on me, a woman.
-
:confused:
I don't even know what you are talking about. I do my very best to conform my views to the mind of the Church. If anyone sees me failing to do that, please correct me. But don't expect me to accept your personal opinions and Scripture interpretations as if they were Church teaching. As far as I know, nobody here speaks for Christ.
I find it ironic that these people who are portraying themselves as defenders of women are making so many personal attacks on me, a woman.
Not to mention "Sola Scriptura" songbird accusing you of being a "free thinker".
:o
If it weren't so evil, it would be laughable.
EVIL. WICKED. SINFUL. BAD.
-
My husband refers to "free thinking" as "thinking on you own".
-
You might accuse her of thinking poorly Ma'am, but in light of what she's written thus far such as regarding S. Thomas, how can you possibly consider, let alone call, her a "free thinker (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/freethinker)"?
Hopefully you were speaking ignorantly, and yet endearingly considering; "free thinker" is neither a good thing to be, nor to be accused of being.
-
I have some friends who became atheists and they started calling themselves "free thinkers" so the expression has horrible connotations for me.
But I'm not sure why you called her "sola scriptura". I looked through some of her old posts and did not see anything like that.
You are really sweet, DZP, but sometimes I find you hard to understand.
-
I have some friends who became atheists and they started calling themselves "free thinkers" so the expression has horrible connotations for me.
>> Ma'am, I don't see any essential difference; that's why it's a pretty bad thing to say of one professing to be Catholic.
But I'm not sure why you called her "sola scriptura". I looked through some of her old posts and did not see anything like that.
>> If it's really necessary, otherwise never mind ma'am.
You are really sweet, DZP,
>> Too kind ma'am but, again, not really. I just have a hard time with nonsense, which many could likely find laughable.
but sometimes I find you hard to understand.
>> For instance...