Vatican fears feminism "lethal" for families

[Tiassa]

Vatican fears feminism "lethal" for families
"Expert" Church aims at feminism, homosexuality

The Vatican issued a letter yesterday attacking the "distortions" and "lethal effects" of feminism, which it defined as an effort to erase differences between men and women — a goal, the statement said, that undermines the "natural two-parent structure" of the family and makes "homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent."

(Williams and Cooperman)

Let us be clear at the outset: the "lethal effect" refers to the death of the traditional family structure. The Vatican letter is not nearly so irresponsible as the headline might suggest, although it is brimming with both the traditional pomposity of the papacy and the traditionally sweeping condemnation that makes its arrogance so poignant.

Frances Kissling, of Catholics for Free Choice, said, "The demonization of feminism is most disturbing . . . It takes extreme positions that may have been historically held by five people and casts them as if they were held by every woman."

I might take a moment to chide Ms. Kissling; she ought to be a little less liberated with her talk. After all, these are religious folks she's talking about, and while I get what she means by "five people," there is a strong chance that traditionalists would take her literally. And that leads to a headache in the morning. At least she won't go to hell for taking a pill for that.

Suzanne Scorsone, spokesperson for Archbishop Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic of Toronto, said, "Somewhere down the line, the thinking became a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. The thinking became that male and female relationships became all about the domination of one of the other. For women to get married was like they wimped out." According to the Toronto Star, Scorsone suggested that this way of thinking contributes to many homosexual relationships.

What's puzzling is that the letter is also laced with compassionate passages, and also goes so far as to distort the Bible.° Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, of Harvard Divinity, noted that the only real surprise about the document was the timing. "It has some positive things in it, but the political function of the document is the same as the ones before," she said. "It's trying to make a theological case, which they're really not able to make, against the full equality of women in the church."

While the Letter expressly states that a woman should not have to choose exclusively between career and family, it seems to want to blame uppity women for homosexuality and smack women back into their places as "helpmates".

The Church, expert in humanity, has a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women. In recent times, much reflection has been given to the question of the dignity of women and to women's rights and duties in the different areas of civil society and the Church. Having contributed to a deeper understanding of this fundamental question, in particular through the teaching of John Paul II, 1the Church is called today to address certain currents of thought which are often at variance with the authentic advancement of women . . . .

. . . . Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues. A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.

A second tendency emerges in the wake of the first. In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex , is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality . . . .

. . . .The second creation account ( Gn 2:4-25) confirms in a definitive way the importance of sexual difference. Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God's creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality. In this encounter, the man speaks words for the first time, expressive of his wonderment: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” ( Gn 2:23).

(Ratzinger)

So it seems then, that according to the Vatican, a woman is important because without her a man's life would be sterile and baneful.

I would remind the Cardinal Ratzinger that a woman is important at least because without her a man's life would not be.

Clearly, the saddest part is where the Letter discusses the fundamentally spiritual dimension of motherhood. Such rubbish is very possibly the sublimation of the human sex drive.

The existence of the Christian vocation of virginity, radical with regard to both the Old Testament tradition and the demands made by many societies, is of the greatest importance in this regard. 17 Virginity refutes any attempt to enclose women in mere biological destiny. Just as virginity receives from physical motherhood the insight that there is no Christian vocation except in the concrete gift of oneself to the other, so physical motherhood receives from virginity an insight into its fundamentally spiritual dimension: it is in not being content only to give physical life that the other truly comes into existence. This means that motherhood can find forms of full realization also where there is no physical procreation.

(Ratzinger)

Give it a read. It's almost humorous. It would be if it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. In that sense, it's a little sick. But I suppose that's another mystery. The headlines are sharp, and somehow overstated. In making more of the situation than necessary, the media has managed to suck the vitality out of it, and reduce it and shift the debate to something trivial and even demeaning. It's not like there's not a legitimate story going on. The Vatican just smiled and smacked "woman" in the jaw, and apparently for no good reason.
___________________

Notes:

° distort the Bible - The first distortion to strike me is rather simple, superficial, and perhaps inconsequential. See Part II.7 of the Letter, regarding Original Sin. Eve was not present when God issued the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge. See Genesis 2, even in a Catholic Bible; the order (v. 16-17) comes before Eve is created (v. 18-23).

Works Cited:

• Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." May 31, 2004. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
• Williams, Daniel and Alan Cooperman. "Vatican Letter Denounces 'Lethal Effects' of Feminism." Washington Post, August 1, 2004; page A16. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30761-2004Jul31.html
• Williams, Daniel, Alan Cooperman and Priya Ramanujam."Vatican criticizes 'lethal effects' of feminism." Toronto Star, August 1, 2004. See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...982&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

See Also

• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. New American Bible See http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Tiassa,

Women are silly.

They had it made. They could stay home. Men were being paid enough to support the both of them.

But they roared their demands "Make us Slaves too!"

Capitalism replied "Okay, if you ask real nice, and say 'pretty please' we'll do you a big favor and make you Slaves too".

Now with both Man and Woman working they have just as hard a time of making ends meet as when the Man used to support the both of them. But the kids need to go to daycare. But no one cooks and the Family sitdown Dinner is a matter of historical record.

But somehow we are supposed to think that the Vatican is being reactionary. But really? Can we say that things are better now then they were before? We did not used to have a 50% divorse rate. The Illegitimacy Rate did not used to exceed the rate of legitimate births. Juvenial Crime didn't used to carry a case load greater then the adult crime rate. But now it does.

Maybe the Vatican wishing to wind back the Clock is impractical, but maybe you should appreciate the Sincerity of the Sentiment. It used to be Good. Now it is bad. It seems ridiculous to defend what is bad against what was better.

 

[Tiassa]

I would find you hilarious if I didn't know a post-Buddhist who feels the same way, and perhaps even moreso. Diversity is sometimes remarkably consistent.

:m:

 

[James R]

They had it made. They could stay home. Men were being paid enough to support the both of them.

They had no option but to stay at home. The issue is freedom to choose.

We did not used to have a 50% divorse rate.

That's because divorce was so frowned upon that even women who were regularly beaten by their abusive husbands didn't have the nerve to attempt to get a divorce, even if such a thing was technically possible.

The Illegitimacy Rate did not used to exceed the rate of legitimate births.

I have no idea how you think this is linked to anything.

Juvenial Crime didn't used to carry a case load greater then the adult crime rate. But now it does.

Ho hum. I don't suppose you have a reference for that one either.

It used to be Good. Now it is bad. It seems ridiculous to defend what is bad against what was better.

Better for Leo, you mean.

 

[JustARide]

So the Vatican is just getting around to addressing feminism? Did they also issue a statement on suffragettes and poodle skirts?

And people say the Catholic Church thinks in centuries... pshaw!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Just another in an endless series of fallacies since humanity first began to grapple with the issues of civil rights.

Being equal doesn't mean that people are the same.

We all know that there are major genetic differences between male and female humans. It's ridiculous to suppose that none of those genetic differences can be the cause of differences in the way we think, dream, yearn, and relate to others. Especially since we already know that they cause substantial differences in other aspects of ourselves.

There are also genetic differences between people of the same sex. All men do not think, dream, yearn, and relate the same way and neither do all women. There's surely a lot of overlap between the genders and there may also be a few areas in which the genders are uniformly different.

Anthropology, psychology, and medicine have not achieved the level necessary to be able to identify and categorize these differences with any degree of accuracy -- or even a decent system of nomenclature for discussing them.

The point is that all people should have the same rights, and one of those is the freedom to figure out who you are and what you want. That right does not conflict with the possibility that who you are and what you want may be to some extent controlled by your genes.

 

[okinrus]

Tiassa, the position seems to be: women are equal to men, but both have different roles. Can you find any Catholic who claims to be as close to God as Mary? The paper also does not seem to generalizing to the work force but inside church and the family. I'd hardly call that arrogant.

 

[Tiassa]

Okinrus:

As to arrogance, it's there at the outset:

The Church, expert in humanity, has a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women. In recent times, much reflection has been given to the question of the dignity of women and to women's rights and duties in the different areas of civil society and the Church. Having contributed to a deeper understanding of this fundamental question, in particular through the teaching of John Paul II, the Church is called today to address certain currents of thought which are often at variance with the authentic advancement of women.

The church may have a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women, but I would hardly call it expert in humanity by any definition. (There's an obsolete definition that can be twisted to suit the occasion, but even then it's a verb to start with.)

This is the result of Catholic doctrine. There are some occasions the Church just looks at something wrong because it insists on some doctrinal position. It is only doctrinal logic that fails to see in something like the part about original sin (II, 7)--

God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” ( Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other.

(Ratzinger)

--the inherent assertion that marriage and therefore the traditional family are in part a punishment intended for woman by God.

And what right does a group of men sworn to chastity have to tell a woman what her virginity and motherhood mean? The sheer pomposity of assigning the burden of social morality onto a woman is offensive in and of itself. (See III, 13)

Sexction IV and the Conclusion ... I don't know where to begin. They're bleeding over with haughty presumption. The best thing I can say about the Letter is that Timothy didn't appear anywhere in it. But applauding that is a bit like applauding the thief in the night for getting into the yard without making the gate squeak.
____________________

• Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." May 31, 2004. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

See Also -

• Dictionary.com: "expert" - See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expert

 

[okinrus]

The church may have a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women, but I would hardly call it expert in humanity by any definition. (There's an obsolete definition that can be twisted to suit the occasion, but even then it's a verb to start with.)

When the Church uses the word "Church" she means the collective Church, both on earth and in heaven. Hence, the wisdom that is contained in her teaching may be considered to be "expert" for the very reason that God is the expert at everything.

This is the result of Catholic doctrine. There are some occasions the Church just looks at something wrong because it insists on some doctrinal position. It is only doctrinal logic that fails to see in something like the part about original sin (II, 7)--

You're quoting it out of context, as should be seen by reading further. "...In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost." Christians don't consider themselves under the old Law. In fact, there's a prophesy in Jeremiah or Isaiah that a women shall encompass a man in desire.

And what right does a group of men sworn to chastity have to tell a woman what her virginity and motherhood mean?

I thought you believed in free speech? I don't think the church's writings on this matter is formed in isolation, away from all lay persons.

The sheer pomposity of assigning the burden of social morality onto a woman is offensive in and of itself. (See III, 13)

The article is going along the theme of the self-fullfilling media stereotype of women, which drives many to be come outspoken against what they believe is a patriachical society. They deny tradition, even that which is has proved fruitful, for the sheer sight that it was developed in part by men.

Although the section recognizes the unique role of women, there's no assigning of the "burden" of social morality.

 

[Tiassa]

Hence, the wisdom that is contained in her teaching may be considered to be "expert" for the very reason that God is the expert at everything.

Now that's a credential to be proud of.

You'd think with that kind of backing they'd get it right more often than they do. And sooner.

You're quoting it out of context, as should be seen by reading further. "...In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost." Christians don't consider themselves under the old Law. In fact, there's a prophesy in Jeremiah or Isaiah that a women shall encompass a man in desire.

Yeah, Christians and the Law is a strange subject in and of itself.

And I think you are reading out of context. What does that equality, respect, and love represent?

Consider it thematically:

• The second creation account (Gn 2:4-25) confirms in a definitive way the importance of sexual difference. Formed by God and placed in the garden which he was to cultivate, the man, who is still referred to with the generic expression Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship with another being on his own level. Only the woman, created from the same “flesh” and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man. It is therefore above all on the ontological level that this takes place, in the sense that God's creation of woman characterizes humanity as a relational reality. In this encounter, the man speaks words for the first time, expressive of his wonderment: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23).

• Every outlook which presents itself as a conflict between the sexes is only an illusion and a danger: it would end in segregation and competition between men and women, and would promote a solipsism nourished by a false conception of freedom.

Without prejudice to the advancement of women's rights in society and the family, these observations seek to correct the perspective which views men as enemies to be overcome. The proper condition of the male-female relationship cannot be a kind of mistrustful and defensive opposition. Their relationship needs to be lived in peace and in the happiness of shared love.

On a more concrete level, if social policies – in the areas of education, work, family, access to services and civic participation – must combat all unjust sexual discrimination, they must also listen to the aspirations and identify the needs of all. The defence and promotion of equal dignity and common personal values must be harmonized with attentive recognition of the difference and reciprocity between the sexes where this is relevant to the realization of one's humanity, whether male or female.

• Far from giving the Church an identity based on an historically conditioned model of femininity, the reference to Mary, with her dispositions of listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and waiting, places the Church in continuity with the spiritual history of Israel. In Jesus and through him, these attributes become the vocation of every baptized Christian. Regardless of conditions, states of life, different vocations with or without public responsibilities, they are an essential aspect of Christian life. While these traits should be characteristic of every baptized person, women in fact live them with particular intensity and naturalness. In this way, women play a role of maximum importance in the Church's life by recalling these dispositions to all the baptized and contributing in a unique way to showing the true face of the Church, spouse of Christ and mother of believers.

In this perspective one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men does not hamper in any way women's access to the heart of Christian life. Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom

(Ratzinger)

We see in the first bulleted passage that woman is made for Adam's benefit. Regardless of how Christians stand with the Law, we also see from the second, women just need to shut up and take it. The third simply reminds us why women ought to be happy being excluded from the priesthood.

That is the respect and equality the Church believes in and is advocating.

I thought you believed in free speech?

Cheap response. I was referring to the moral right. The Church has a legal right to say most anything it wants, but in the end the Church's "speech" represents a form of authority that really is quite irresponsible. What moral authority has the Church to twist and pervert people's minds? Only their consent? Whence comes that consent? Largely from spiritual blackmail? Sack the Church--it has no moral authority to assert so recklessly about matters it is demonstrably incapable of understanding.

I don't think the church's writings on this matter is formed in isolation, away from all lay persons.

Well, I tell you, neither Wiccans nor atheists nor Buddhists nor even Lutherans wrote this.

If they want to put the lay people's names on the document, that's fine. As for now, we're dealing with the Pope and the Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The article is going along the theme of the self-fullfilling media stereotype of women, which drives many to be come outspoken against what they believe is a patriachical society

The crimes of the American patriarchal society, at least, are not mere media stereotypes.

They deny tradition, even that which is has proved fruitful, for the sheer sight that it was developed in part by men.

Perhaps you would like to expand on what those fruitful traditions are.

Although the section recognizes the unique role of women, there's no assigning of the "burden" of social morality.

The unique role of women seems to be to carry that burden of social morality:

In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others. Here what John Paul II has termed the genius of women becomes very clear. It implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the family, “the primordial and, in a certain sense sovereign society”, since it is here above all that the features of a people take shape; it is here that its members acquire basic teachings. They learn to love inasmuch as they are unconditionally loved, they learn respect for others inasmuch as they are respected, they learn to know the face of God inasmuch as they receive a first revelation of it from a father and a mother full of attention in their regard. Whenever these fundamental experiences are lacking, society as a whole suffers violence and becomes in turn the progenitor of more violence. It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.

(Ratzinger)

It was awful nice of them to stick in a token "father" when discussing the genius of woman.

Before we go limiting ourselves and pointing out that, well, within a family it is a very good idea for a mother to be active, as opposed to aloof or inactive, we should also look at those who are not within a family in which they are raising children:

This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.

(Ratzinger)

See that bit about "biological determinism"?

Two little words. Seem subtle, don't they? They make all the difference in a world. "Liberation from biological determinism" is liberation from "woman as a baby factory."

All else--her equality, her respect, her love, stem from being a baby factory, and it is a potentially lethal threat for the traditional family, according to the Church, to think otherwise.

The difference between the compassionate equality of Ratzinger's Letter and the equality it fears is that the Church sees equality inasmuch as "a place for everyone and everyone in their place," while what they fear tells people to do what they do best and maximize their potential contribution to humanity.
____________________

• Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." May 31, 2004. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

 

[okinrus]

In general you are reading behind the lines, seeing what just isn't there.

We see in the first bulleted passage that woman is made for Adam's benefit.

Need. The two were mutually dependent upon each other.

Regardless of how Christians stand with the Law, we also see from the second, women just need to shut up and take it.

So you believe that women should maintain an outlook where they are conflict with males?

The third simply reminds us why women ought to be happy being excluded from the priesthood.

There are many things that women do that men could not do.

If they want to put the lay people's names on the document, that's fine. As for now, we're dealing with the Pope and the Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Well, to say that priest live in isolation is quite wrong. Priests typically have to deal with many sorts of people.

Before we go limiting ourselves and pointing out that, well, within a family it is a very good idea for a mother to be active, as opposed to aloof or inactive, we should also look at those who are not within a family in which they are raising children:

Not sure what you mean by this. A child and his mother or father is a family.

See that bit about "biological determinism"?

Two little words. Seem subtle, don't they? They make all the difference in a world. "Liberation from biological determinism" is liberation from "woman as a baby factory."

No, I don't think so, because there's a physical difference between men and women. Of course, since the Church welcomes vocations to the monastary, I'd hardly call the church pro-baby-factory.

 

[Tiassa]

Need. The two were mutually dependent upon each other.

Now you are seeing what just isn't there. I cited where I'm getting my interpretation. "Because you say so," does not a valid point make.

So you believe that women should maintain an outlook where they are conflict with males?

Until such a time when women are respected as human beings full and equal, they damn well better fight for it. I can't imagine that complacency under the yoke of irrational men is a solution that will bring us any real progress.

There are many things that women do that men could not do.

Such as?

And try not to go for the obvious ones. I'll go so far as to say there's a difference between what nature dictates and what humanity dictates. The one is a matter of reality while the other is mere opinion.

Well, to say that priest live in isolation is quite wrong. Priests typically have to deal with many sorts of people.

As someone who has dealt with sexual abuse survivors and counseled against suicide, I don't see how that gives me the right (e.g. moral authority) to tell a woman how to feel about such issues. Even if I trained to do such things professionally, I would not have that right.

Not sure what you mean by this. A child and his mother or father is a family.

I was pre-empting any notion that a woman's equality included not having children. Such as "biological determinism", as in the statement,

• "This theory ... intended to promote equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has ... inspired ideologies which ... call into question the natural two-parent structure ... and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."

Now think about it. The Church sees a "lethal effect" for families in the evolution of the family. In other words, for women to liberate themselves from biological determinism is a potential "lethal" blow to the family. The Church is incapable of seeing the positive aspects of the evolution of families. "Traditional" families have failed America inasmuch as the "traditional" family is as much a risk as any other form. What, exactly, is the problem with questioning the "natural two-parent structure"?

No, I don't think so, because there's a physical difference between men and women. Of course, since the Church welcomes vocations to the monastary, I'd hardly call the church pro-baby-factory.

And I won't argue that you're not entitled to your opinion.

 

[Knife]

@ tiassa,

just a quick question, if science could allow for the male gender of the humans species to bear children, would you support such a change?

"equal, but different".

 

[Tiassa]

My only worry is that it would become trendy and insincere. As that's a purely superficial and temporal concern, though, sure, why not? It's low on my priority list, though.

 

[§outh§tar]

By divine design, man is to be the “head” of woman – in society, in the church, and in the home (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22–24). This graduation of authority rests on two bases: first, the original constitution of the sexes as created; and, second, woman’s role in the Fall.

Concerning the former, the Bible teaches that:

1. Woman was made as a help for man – not the reverse (Gen. 2:18,20).

2. Paul wrote: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11: 8,9).

3. And again, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13).

As to the woman’s role in the Fall, she believed Satan’s lie that she might become as God, and hence, was “beguiled” (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3) or “deceived” (1 Tim. 2:14), whereas Adam, laboring under no such deception (1 Tim. 2:14), merely sinned due to his weakness for the woman (Gen. 3:12). Accordingly, woman’s subjection was increased after her fail (Gen. 3:16).

These facts do not suggest that woman is inferior to man, but they do mean (to those who respect the testimony of Scripture) that she is subordinate in rank to man. It ought to be emphasized that as Christ’s subjection to the Father involved no deprivation of dignity (Phil. 2:5–11), so there is none in woman’s subjection to man. So, as we shall presently observe, because of these historical facts, the sphere of woman’s activity has been divinely circumscribed.

Full article here: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/womensRole.htm

 

[Cris]

Southstar,

You paint the perfect picture of Christian bigotry and intolerance and as such sets a strong stand for outlawing Christianity on the grounds of sexual discrimination and as a divisive and socially offensive institution.

 

[Zero]

By divine design, man is to be the “head” of woman – in society, in the church, and in the home (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22–24).

...

Concerning the former, the Bible teaches that:

1. Woman was made as a help for man – not the reverse (Gen. 2:18,20).

2. Paul wrote: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11: 8,9).

3. And again, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13).

...

Adam, laboring under no such deception (1 Tim. 2:14), merely sinned due to his weakness for the woman (Gen. 3:12). Accordingly, woman’s subjection was increased after her fail (Gen. 3:16).

So, as we shall presently observe, because of these historical facts, the sphere of woman’s activity has been divinely circumscribed.

Either your girlfriend or wife should be informed of this, or should you lack either, be ridiculed for not being able to get any due to self-inflicted religiously self-justified brainlessness.

Good job.

 

[Leo Volont]

They had no option but to stay at home. The issue is freedom to choose.

Society decided to outlaw Child Labor -- for two reasons: 1.) Children should not waste themselves in Slavery, and 2) They cheapened wages.

So... 1) Women should not be wasted in Slavery, and 2) Women flooding the job market (ballooning the Labor Pool to twice it Natural Size) cheapens wages.

If women don't want to stay at home, visiting with all the other women who don't go to work either, because they are afraid their loud mouths might cause them to be beaten by their overwrought husbands, then let them become Nuns -- such is why God created that wonderful Institution.

 

[Tiassa]

Underwater, unaware

I absolutely adore the work of Peter Gabriel:

• I caught sight of my reflection
I caught it in the window
I saw the darkness in my heart
I saw the signs of my undoing
They had been there from the start
And the darkness still has work to do
The knotted cords untying
They're heated and they're holy
Oh they're sitting there on high
So secure with everything they're buying . . . . ("Blood of Eden")

• Waiting your time, dreaming of a better life
Waiting your time, you're more than just a wife
You don't want to do what your mother has done
She has done
This is your life, this new life has begun
It's your day - a woman's day
It's your day - a woman's day

Turning the tide, you are on the incoming wave
Turning the tide, you know you are nobody's slave
Find your sisters and brothers
Who can hear all the truth in what you say
They can support you when you're on your way
It's your day - a woman's day
It's your day - a woman's day ("Shaking the Tree")

• In this house of make believe
Divided in two, like Adam and Eve
You put out and I recieve

Down by the railway siding
In our secret world, we were colliding
In all the places we were hiding love
What was it we were thinking of? ("Secret World")

Far be it for me to tell anyone what that all actually means. But if for some reason you don't get it, don't worry about it. Really, it's not that important a point.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Tiassa,


I'm a Marian. And I am a Father of a Daughter. So I do not hate women... or, well, not as a necessary point of doctrine, however the particulars play out.

But I do not think women are doing themselves a service by making themselves into semi-quasi-men. It sounds patronizing, but I think women are better then that.

I also think men should limit their interactions with women. Most of the problems between men and women arise because no effort is made to maintain a discreet distance. Honestly I wonder why husbands and wives find it necessary to live in the same apartments. If the husband shows up for an occassional meal and social hour, that should be plenty, and most marriages would be the happier for it. Too much socializing together makes Women out of Men and Men out of Women, to the detriment of both.