tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post114211954093313079..comments2023-10-09T07:56:32.564-05:00Comments on Sacramentum Vitae: The figleaf of gender equalityMike Lhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09060404905348849140noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1142254737918782162006-03-13T07:58:00.000-05:002006-03-13T07:58:00.000-05:00Just like the Church's vision of sexuality is a li...Just like the Church's vision of sexuality is a lightning rod for disagreement, frustration, and anger, this whole realm is a microcosm of the living-out of Original Sin.<BR/><BR/>I agree that many contemporary attitudes and approaches are rife with contradiction, bloody-mindedness, disorientation, and neglect of children. I have to tell you, however, that except for a few noble souls the earlier ways small and large were geared to breaking women's spirits, reiterating their "place," and putting them to the harness for the male ego. It had to change; and I wouldn't go back for anything to the days when, as an eager young professional, I was not allowed into a New York restaurant alone to wait for a meeting because respectable women could have no business there unless escorted. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, the worst and most immediate enforcers were other disappointed women, which may be one reason an early feminist meme was "sisterhood." All idealism of course soon cratered. <BR/><BR/>Reciprocal cherishing (people and the sexes) and humbly seeking one's calling in the world and the Kingdom is the only way to go. The old ways didn't get us there either. Did you ever, as a vulgar kid, read Portnoy's Complaint? I did. Its last line is (approximately) "Now, perhaps, we are ready to begin..."<BR/><BR/>I continue to appreciate your accurate and heartfelt bulletins from the post-feminist front lines; but it may be premature to enshrine them as a complete social philosophy. <EM>:-)</EM>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1142190722332083812006-03-12T14:12:00.000-05:002006-03-12T14:12:00.000-05:00Well, men and women are different. As a woman who...Well, men and women are different. As a woman who cannot have children, I think it's sad that so many women take their fertility for granted. I think it's sad, too, that the family has to be a place where a husband and wife compete for money and power. The two are supposed to be a team working for a higher goal than any "career" can attain. <BR/><BR/>If I ever marry and adopt children, I would definitely prefer staying home to raise the children rather than go back to work full-time. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't want a stranger spending more time with my young children than I do. I might be inclined to look for a part-time job once the children were in school rather than going back to the "rat-race." I don't think I'd be a very good housekeeper, and I would expect my husband to chip in and do his fair share of the housework - that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to do most of it, but a woman appreciates a man who is willing to help out with the dishes and vacuuming every once in a while instead of watching TV while she does everything. Of course when the kids are old enough, I'd put them to work too! Although yardwork, heavy chores, working after hours etc would count :o). <BR/><BR/>I hope our society gets to a point where men will love their wives, have integrity and be trustworthy, and put their families first. This kind of man won't take his wife for granted or treat her like a servant, won't abandon her if she is vulnerable, works out of love for his family rather than his own ego (and might forego promotions and raises if he has to in order to spend time with the family), and is a man I would be glad to have for a husband. I think in order for this to work, he would have to put God first in his life and understand the meaning of authentic fatherhood.<BR/><BR/>This is getting long so I'd better stop here :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1142129807679455162006-03-11T21:16:00.000-05:002006-03-11T21:16:00.000-05:00BB: You're welcome. I wonder why so few seem to be...BB: You're welcome. I wonder why so few seem to be saying these rather obvious things.<BR/><BR/>John:<BR/><BR/>It's nice to meet a kindred spirit. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>I for one would love a society organized for the benefit of men like you and me. If women wanted that and were willing to handle the temporalities for us, fine. But it ain't gonna happen. If you relieve men of the weighty social responsibiities you list, most will proceed to play games, fight, fornicate, and get high—way more than they do now. Most people know that, and few want it.<BR/><BR/>Guess we just have to wait until the Parousia.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>MikeMike Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18100363229707213441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1142129287711805572006-03-11T21:08:00.000-05:002006-03-11T21:08:00.000-05:00thanks, i'm new to the blog world. came upo...thanks, i'm new to the blog world. came upon this by chance. and i appreciate your thorough thinking on the gender matter. read some of your paper on aquinas (my philosphical lighthouse) and will finish it. i have put forth recently a rather sardonic social thesis...one that i call "the great 21st century compromise" basically it states that 1) we hand everything over to the women...everything except the public liturgy of the RC church...(the other denominations can work it out however they see fit...i'm sure the orthodox churches will retain a mail clergy) but the schools, the gov't, business, health care....everything....they manage and organize much better than men...so let them have it. they need to recognize the great historical investment of time energy manpower money etc. contributed my men over the years. and the trade off is...we are free to pursue liesure in the philosophical sense of "schola". men are free to establish the definig principles of such an arrangement. our daily sustenance will be part of our freedom. women cannot own us. we may see ourselves free to assist them at times...on our terms. they msut set up the social necessities of child care etc... to which we can participate at will...not out of obligation so much...except perhaps to initiate young men into the ways and practices of philosophy when the time is ripe. my thought is that we would represent the faction which would be resposible for slowing the world down. the life of the mind would be at the center of all male activity. and i expect a reasonable balance would develop between the busy management of social life and the by-all-appearances- predilection for the daily deadbeat lives of the thought focussed males. no doubt soem details woudl press forth upon the transition time... but i fully expect the good will of both sides to work that out. <BR/><BR/>your brother in faithjhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043530995274885830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14300599.post-1142124244111373802006-03-11T19:44:00.000-05:002006-03-11T19:44:00.000-05:00How double-plus-un-PC. How double-plus-uncool. H...How double-plus-un-PC. How double-plus-uncool. How true.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, Dr. L.Bernard Brandthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00159541603126407072noreply@blogger.com