Author Topic: Woman's perspective on being single in your 30's (Read 11677 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:34:03 PM »

And upon further thought, I probably have no business commenting in this topic anyway, not until I start courting (if ever). So sorry I said anything, as I clearly am no expert on this topic. Since I joined here, I've learned that there are certain topics I am better off keeping my mouth shut on. This is one of them, I think. For now, that is.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2012, 01:11:35 AM »

SpiritusSanctus said

Quote

You're mostly right here, but you're wrong in one area. It's true that the man is the head of the household, but you seem to be over-stepping that boundary a bit (correct me if I misunderstood what you meant). The Bible verse "wives submit to your husbands" is taken out of context by a lot of Protestant men (I've seen it first-hand), and that leads to them being control freaks.

You ignored this part Tele and it is true. Most errors we make are exaggerations of truth, and while the man is the head of the household, overly controlling and domineering men do not understand the true spirit of being married. Do you think St. Joseph was going around barking "Obey, woman, I am the head of the household, you are made from my rib!" Yeah, I know that relationship is different -- but then again, not really, because St. Joseph WAS the head. Though Mary is greater in heaven by far, Christ would not have had her eclipse her husband as the head of the household while on Earth, as that goes against the order of things.

All this is more about pride and fear -- the pride of wanting to play up being "the head," the fear of being cheated on or emasculated or not having total control. It is very Protestant, as is the work ethic in this nation. These men who want exaggerated dominance often are attracted to an exaggeration of submission such as you find with Asian women. They want geishas, servant girls. There is a fine but detectable line between slaves and obedient wives. The woman is beholden to God first and THEN her husband. If she doesn't love God, good luck with your marriage; if she does love God, then you can trust her to try to do her duty.

The irony of course is that by exerting so much pressure on their wives, they make their lives so miserable that they are more prone to cheat.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2012, 01:25:58 AM »

The Catholic husband is supposed to be the Lord of his house. Now we know very well what the qualifications of that are driving at in this day and age. Women don't want to treat their husbands as Lord of the house. They are not in fear of their husbands as St. Paul says they should be.

I have never advocated for being a domineering control freak.

How many Catholic wives fear their husbands as St. Paul says they should?

I feel the same sympathy for my mother that any other son feels, but I was always taught that this requirement that a wife obey her husband is part of our religion, and those that try to diminish are really trying to subvert it. Including men like John Paul II.

As I've grown older I've come to realize that the child's sympathy for one's mother and anger at one's father for being "mean" is something that is not necessarily a good thing. I have two grandparents, one was a very tall, handsome man who had a big temper, the other was a relatively short, small, man of incredible kindness. By nature I'm more inclined to take after the kind grandfather, but my mother married the tall handsome man's son.

While a man should always try to temper his harsher qualities, the fact of the matter is that it is necessary, generally speaking, for a wife to fear her husband. Wives are not sinless like the Virgin Mary.

I would love to be with a woman who appreciates a kind nature. Those aren't too common these days. In a world of safety a genuinely kind man just blends in with all the other "nice" guys.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2012, 02:18:40 AM »

I'll add a related point, and I think it is connected to the OP as well.

There's a reason that the Church for centuries recognized marriages without witnesses.

While it's obviously not ideal for a marriage to start that way, part of the fallen nature of woman is that she wants to be taken.

A man who goes and supplicates to a father for a woman's hand, who jumps through hoops, who dutifully waits until marriage to know his bride to be, is acting in a manner that taxes a woman's patience.

Let's not kid ourselves: the reason that young couples are not waiting until marriage these days is in large part because of the nature of women. It's a woman's responsibility to preserve herself until marriage. This is not at all to excuse fornication on the part of young men: but the fact is, practically speaking, it is the woman's responsibility. Why doesn't it happen these days? Because the vast majority of women don't want to wait, they want to be taken. In fact, I have a hunch that if they aren't taken, a lot of them start to think there's something wrong with their fiance.

That is one of the pernicious things about making men jump through so many hoops these days. It is setting up the husband to be in the role of a supplicant. Setting himself up as being subordinate to the girl and her family.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2012, 09:28:02 AM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Forgive me ladies of CathInfo, but I've come to the conclusion in my senior years that women are fools.

If you're single, count your blessings. Believe me.

Yes. At least, most American women. You are all insane. If I had found a sane woman earlier in life, I'd have been married in my early twenties.

Unfortunately, most American women enjoy being difficult and combative, constantly opposing their husbands, regarding them as fools. I suppose that's what you can expect from all the messages you see on television.

After 15 years of dating, I had concluded that better women were likely located in other countries. I was right.

No offense to the exceptions out there. I'm sure there's about five.