Author Topic: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?  (Read 2510 times)

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5223
  • Thanked: 2932 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #105 on: November 16, 2019, 02:10:07 PM »

Surely there's a difference between being a helpmate to men and serving them.  You've described both as being the role of women.

You can make a distinction between "helpmate" and "serving," but it's not a difference. The two concepts work together. One who is a helpmate serves their superior.

First God created Eve to be a helpmate to Adam. But then later He ordered her to serve Adam.

Genesis 3
[16] 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.



A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example. 

The reality is just the opposite:
  - A wife who stays home and serves the family makes a tremendous economic contribution.
  - A wife who gets a job is a net monetary loss for the family as well as for society.

The income from a second job looks attractive, but when you analyze it more closely, you see that the family is losing money:
 - Extra taxes, especially since the husband's job already used all the deductions
 - Extra car, extra clothes, extra restaurant food
 - Child care expenses; without taking advantage of family members, it's impossible.

Meanwhile the family has lost everything they would have had with the family's wife and mother at home.

Pope Pius XI said:

Casti Connubii:

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which
 - the husband suffers the loss of his wife,
 - the children of their mother,
 - and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian.

More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus, queen.saints

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5223
  • Thanked: 2932 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #106 on: November 16, 2019, 02:37:38 PM »

Women are NOT unequal to men. 

Argument by ALL CAPS. Recognized on the internet, but not a legitimate theological approach.


St. Thomas did not "point this out," he stated an opinion. Pointing something out means that you are direction attention to fact. This opinion is highly debatable.

The Summa Theologica is not "opinions." Your statements, on the other hand, are opinions. A traditional Catholic can distinguish.


Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe?

Yes, definitely. Have you read St. Theresa? She repeatedly stresses the importance of religious women not trusting themselves but rather putting themselves under the authority male leaders, as she herself did.


There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man.

I have seen no such data. Just the opposite.


God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women
What Aquinas Really Said about Women

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe...

Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas’ position on woman’s intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities—we should love our own. God wants inequalities in rational beings, and if we love God we should conform our will to His. It is pride, the excessive desire of our own excellence, that tends to make us sad when another has some perfection or grace we do not have. To sorrow at the good is intrinsically evil. In our discussions of the differences between the sexes, we must avoid yielding to impulses of envy, but strive rather to love whatever littleness we may have due to our sex, as God loves it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus, queen.saints

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2568
  • Thanked: 1030 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #107 on: November 16, 2019, 03:08:02 PM »

A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example. 

The reality is just the opposite:
  - A wife who stays home and serves the family makes a tremendous economic contribution.
  - A wife who gets a job is a net monetary loss for the family as well as for society.

The income from a second job looks attractive, but when you analyze it more closely, you see that the family is losing money:
 - Extra taxes, especially since the husband's job already used all the deductions
 - Extra car, extra clothes, extra restaurant food
 - Child care expenses; without taking advantage of family members, it's impossible.

I wasn't talking about a woman getting a job outside of the home.

I was specifically talking about the contribution a woman could make to a family business conducted from the family home, as would likely have been much more common in pre-industrial societies in which men's employment also takes place in the home, eg in smallholdings and family businesses like the example of the Medieval cobbler I gave in another post.

And what about the flax farmer (husband) and the flax  weaver (wife) model?  Should the farmer hire a man to weave the cloth instead?

But you didn't address this.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 54 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #108 on: November 16, 2019, 04:42:31 PM »


Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe?

Yes, definitely. Have you read St. Theresa? She repeatedly stresses the importance of religious women not trusting themselves but rather putting themselves under the authority male leaders, as she herself did.

Using male leaders to help you figure out what to do is not serving man...what? Those are two completely different things.


There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man.

I have seen no such data. Just the opposite.

I would point to the female astronauts, mathematicians, scientists, etc for some examples. It is true that throughout history women have a poor showing in intellectual fields. That however is from not having the chance to try, not because of a lack of ability. The most famous tailors in the world have primarily been men. Is that because men are naturally better equipped to sew? No, it is because women were busy sewing at home, and men were perfecting skills to make money. Men have also been the most famous chefs in the world, again, not because they are better equipped to cook. It is about having the chance to perfect a craft. You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff as us." When given the chance and the time, they are. The thing is, when a woman is married it is her job to be a multi-tasker. She cannot focus her energy in one field only. Even if she did, men are the ones in the public sphere, getting credit for their accomplishments. A woman could be brilliant at many things and no one would ever know. Now that you have women in these fields, you are seeing equality in ability. According to stats (since you seem to care so darn much) females perform far better than males in math and science in school today. Now, there is a whole heap of context that accounts for this, some of which is the public school system, but nevertheless, that's what the stats say.


God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women
What Aquinas Really Said about Women

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe...

He is welcome to think that, and considering that men were all taught philosophy, logic, Latin, and math in his day; while women were taught knitting, singing, and dancing, it is no wonder he was under that impression.

Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas’ position on woman’s intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities-we should love our own.
[/quote]

That is too rich. Considering that you are of the opinion that women are "made to serve man" (totally false, women are to be under the authority of their husbands, that does not have anything to do with women in general or why they were created) and that women are intellectually inferior, I wonder what littleness and inferiority you think you have to do deal with? Do you actually think there is some area in which God has granted greater abilities to women? How does that gel with men being better helpers in all things other than childbirth? All of the great saints talk about humility, that to become nothing is to become perfect. Women understand this concept just fine, we don't need your help. Most trad men of your ilk however, seem to spend their time figuring out how to diminish women, and explain how little and humble they should be. I think of a bit of time focused on trad men becoming humble and contemplating the obligations of their vocation would serve this forum well. Why the obsession?
 

Offline queen.saints

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 647
  • Thanked: 320 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #109 on: November 16, 2019, 06:34:32 PM »

Obviously.  And I'm sure your friend is as lovely as you say she is.

Thank you for clarifying that. She’s even lovelier. It’s too easy to type out the words “spends all day serving others” and it doesn’t fully convey what that really entails and what kind of person you need to be in order to spend your life that way.

Quote

But what you see is not always what you get.  Have you never met a woman who appeared kind, gentle and sweet in all her outward behaviours but who actually turned out to be malicious and manipulative underneath it all?  Do you admit that the more submissive, shy, modest and retiring such a woman seems, the more likely it is that she will keep her true nature concealed?


No, I’ve never met someone like that. Those qualities are actually incredibly difficult to fake. The director of the movie “Junebug” had to deal with this problem when trying to find an actress who could play a genuinely good woman. Amy Adams was the only actress in the world who could play the part without coming across as false or ironic.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081206021444/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/07/for_actress_amy_adams_role_was_a_turning_point/?page=2
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Offline queen.saints

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 647
  • Thanked: 320 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #110 on: November 16, 2019, 06:59:07 PM »
I'm not sure what is the point of this digression about "pleasant and submissive" vs "tough, no nonsense" styles of traditional catholic women, since it seems to me that neither of them play competitive sports.

It stemmed from the quote Aeternitus gave from Fr. Leen in which he said that tenderness, devotedness, adaptability, strength, grace, restraint, endurance, helpfulness, modesty, reserve, dignity, and sensibility are the characteristics that a woman should have and which are destroyed by sports.

This is the quote with which several people disagreed.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Aeternitus

Offline Aeternitus

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • Thanked: 116 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #111 on: November 16, 2019, 07:49:41 PM »
I have two concerns with this argument.  First of all, in choosing a career, sportswomen (and men) only have a short career life to factor into their overall life-plan.  By early or mid-30s most are past their prime and younger, stronger, fitter and faster versions have replaced them. Consequently, they have another lifetime or more (35 years +) to plan for, so it is not the same as a woman who has chosen a profession/career, which can sustain her throughout her working life.  Of course some may not need to work, if they have been successful enough to fund the rest of their lives.  But they do have to do something with the rest of their lives...  Marriage may be one option - if they can find a suitable choice who has not been married before.  But they have certainly reduced their options in this area.
Sure, but that is a problem everyone, man or woman, faces when deciding for a career in professional sports. This type of career is short and one has to actively prepare for a new life after it ends - one has to be aware of that and make proper preparations and save enough money during the career.


Agreed.  However, a woman would have to be very successful to have saved enough to support herself for 35, 40, 50 more years.  As a general rule, women live longer than men.   Only the very rare few of those who gave it a try would achieve this in comparison to many more men, who have a larger, more lucrative field in which to excel and are not limited by modesty restrictions to the same extent.  Men often have endorsements from their sponsors, contributing to their income, due to their public popularity, which women wouldn’t necessarily enjoy unless they were willing to promote a lot of that immodest sports clothing. The majority of women embarking on a sports career would at best be mildly successful for a short period and they wouldn’t know that they were only going to be mildly successful until their short career was all but over. They would then be at a cross-roads at mid-life with more choices to make and limited options.  Is such an uncertain and short-term choice worth it for a woman in the scheme of life – a catholic life? I am yet to be convinced. A doctor or a nuclear scientist is a career choice for life, aimed at assisting/benefitting society, which, in my view, does not compare.           
       

Quote from: Aeternus
Secondly, I believe Bp Sanborn and any of the traditional clergy would oppose a sports career for women on the issue of modesty alone, let alone any other potentially valid reason.  I’ve seen photos of women footballers in action shots that I would not permit a child or young man under my control to view.   And to equate Bp Sanborn’s example of a woman who chooses nuclear science as a career with one who chooses a sports career, in my view, is an Olympian leap in itself.  I know he says: “then do whatever you want as a career”, but it goes without saying that would not include anything that involves mortal sin.

Quote
But that assumes that immodesty and other mortal sins are inherent to professional sports, which they are not. In a proper Catholic order the same sports could be practiced with consideration of proper standards of modesty in dressing. Current immodesty in many sports says more about modern society and its mores than sport itself.


As we live in modern society and professional sport for women is a product of modern society, played in modern society, against competitors from modern society, is there any current sport for women, played in the proper Catholic order, at the professional level, generating sufficient income for one proficient enough at it to consider it a career?  If it didn’t pay the way (which it wouldn’t if not played in modern society) it would not be a career, but a recreational activity, subject to the Catholic principles governing recreation.  Modesty is not only about dress, it is also about deportment.  I have been trying to think of a sport in which woman could not only dress modestly, but would also have no need to engage in immodest body positions, leg raises/stretches, etc., subject to the public eye, in the quest for competitive superiority.   All I can come up with are golf, archery, cricket perhaps, but not necessarily, if one needs to dive to catch a ball.  Perhaps you can think of some more? A tennis-playing woman in a calf length skirt, as opposed to the micro-mini version, is not going to be able to stretch for a ball like Serena and her contemporaries.  And if the skirt is full enough to allow our Catholic lady the freedom for such a stretch, then the chances are quite high of the skirt ending up around her ears on occasion, as she goes into a momentum induced tumble.   
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 08:16:31 PM by Aeternitus »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #112 on: November 16, 2019, 08:17:42 PM »
Yes, because women are fundamentally unequal to men. This view comes from "the Medieval Period," as your say, and prior to that from thousands of years of human experience, beginning in the Garden of Eden. It was then confirmed by the Holy Ghost through the inspired epistles of St. Paul.

Could you explain how Eve was fundamentally made to be inferior to Adam? Because she was made second to Adam to be his helper?

Marie de France in the 12th century was basically told to shut up on the same argument you are (likely) making. She exegeted the Genesis account right back at them, stating that Eve was made from humanity, and Adam was made from dust. Personal exegeses of Genesis won't help you, because there's nothing explicit about women being inferior to men. The only thing that suggests that is that women, as a result of the Fall, have to submit to their husbands - but that means little in terms of inferiority. It's also not something of God's own Pre-Fall design, but rather a result of the Fall. Indeed, marriages are dissolved in Heaven, despite an eternal mark on the soul.

Saint Paul can also be exegeted differently as well. Just because women have to submit themselves to their husbands and women shouldn't talk in Church doesn't necessarily imply they are inferior in their nature.

Quote
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men. St. Thomas points out that women are helpmates to men primarily only in childbearing because in any other circumstance another man would be a better helpmate.

And St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. It's not as if all Patristic authorship stopped up until this Italian Dominican friar was born, and then he remains the only Church Father. And in the Church Fathers, you will find varying levels and degrees of how much liberty and roles women are allowed to have.

Saint Clement of Alexandria said women should have their entire body covered except their eyes (where the Burka obviously comes from). Do you agree with that? He also stated that men who shave their beards were feminine.

Quote
"Anecdotal instances" which refute all the available data. One can always find 1 individual woman who is stronger than 1 individual man. But the reality is that the grip strength of the average man on the street is greater than that of Olympic female athletes.

Lol, I'm glad you've managed to find and quantify objective data. It's not as if your own "available data" is going off of your own anecdotal experiences.

Quote
The same is true even more so intellectually. Ever since women have been admitted into universities they have become moral cesspools -- that much is obvious -- but even more crucially they have abandoned any pretense of intellectual standards. Intellectual life has ceased to exist.

Universities were moral cesspools even since the time of Martin Luther, who became disillusioned with how much drinking there was at the university. Even then, women aren't the cause of Eugenics, Marxism, Nihilism, the New Age, and other Enlightenment products.

Quote
Of course you are.

No, I'm not.

Quote
Idiocy. Wicked idiocy. Utilitarianism is always and fundamentally an evil philosophy. But when you use Utilitarianism as a justification for changing the nature of men and women as they are created by God, then you cross over into the realm of Stalin and Mao.

You have to prove the nature of women is to be inferior to man to assert that I'm using Utilitarianism to change the nature of men and women. Also, could you explain why Utilitarianism is always an evil philosophy?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 08:30:21 PM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 
The following users thanked this post: coffeeandcigarette

Offline Aeternitus

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 117
  • Thanked: 116 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #113 on: November 16, 2019, 09:07:08 PM »


Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe?

Yes, definitely. Have you read St. Theresa? She repeatedly stresses the importance of religious women not trusting themselves but rather putting themselves under the authority male leaders, as she herself did.

Using male leaders to help you figure out what to do is not serving man...what? Those are two completely different things.


There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man.

I have seen no such data. Just the opposite.

I would point to the female astronauts, mathematicians, scientists, etc for some examples. It is true that throughout history women have a poor showing in intellectual fields. That however is from not having the chance to try, not because of a lack of ability. The most famous tailors in the world have primarily been men. Is that because men are naturally better equipped to sew? No, it is because women were busy sewing at home, and men were perfecting skills to make money. Men have also been the most famous chefs in the world, again, not because they are better equipped to cook. It is about having the chance to perfect a craft. You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff as us." When given the chance and the time, they are. The thing is, when a woman is married it is her job to be a multi-tasker. She cannot focus her energy in one field only. Even if she did, men are the ones in the public sphere, getting credit for their accomplishments. A woman could be brilliant at many things and no one would ever know. Now that you have women in these fields, you are seeing equality in ability. According to stats (since you seem to care so darn much) females perform far better than males in math and science in school today. Now, there is a whole heap of context that accounts for this, some of which is the public school system, but nevertheless, that's what the stats say.


God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women
What Aquinas Really Said about Women

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe...

He is welcome to think that, and considering that men were all taught philosophy, logic, Latin, and math in his day; while women were taught knitting, singing, and dancing, it is no wonder he was under that impression.

Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas’ position on woman’s intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities-we should love our own.

That is too rich. Considering that you are of the opinion that women are "made to serve man" (totally false, women are to be under the authority of their husbands, that does not have anything to do with women in general or why they were created) and that women are intellectually inferior, I wonder what littleness and inferiority you think you have to do deal with? Do you actually think there is some area in which God has granted greater abilities to women? How does that gel with men being better helpers in all things other than childbirth? All of the great saints talk about humility, that to become nothing is to become perfect. Women understand this concept just fine, we don't need your help. Most trad men of your ilk however, seem to spend their time figuring out how to diminish women, and explain how little and humble they should be. I think of a bit of time focused on trad men becoming humble and contemplating the obligations of their vocation would serve this forum well. Why the obsession?

St Thomas:
Quote
ST q.92, a.1, Reply to Objection 2: 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. 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; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.

What St Thomas makes clear in the above quote was evidenced in Our Lord’s day.  Did He choose women to be apostles and disciples to endure the rigours involved and from whom authority is derived to govern His Church?  No. How many females are doctors of His Church in which intellectual supremacy and rigour are demanded?  Until 1970 there were none. 

We see the place women held for Our Lord whilst He was on earth, in the scheme of His Divine plan and also in the governing of His Church once He departed earth for Heaven.  His Mother and the holy women followed and served Him and His disciples. 

We know the power His Mother had over Him at the time, has now and will continue to have for eternity.  His first miracle was at Her tender appeal, precipitated by Her motherly concern for the wedded couple at Cana.    Mary is the perfect example of virgin and mother, the two choices available to women.  Those virgins or widows, who do not, for whatever valid reason, consecrate themselves to Christ, may well need to be employed or even enjoy a chosen career in fields not otherwise open to women in general, due to their duties of state.  I am yet to be convinced a sporting career for any woman is a wise choice.   

So, yes, it is lack of opportunity preventing women from careers in fields in which, granted, some have excelled, equalling or bettering their male counterparts .  But that lack of opportunity is due to the fact that her Creator has other plans for her and endowed her with particular qualities best suited to His plan.  It is He who is responsible for this ‘lack of opportunity’ and any objection to it should be directed towards Him.   



 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Padraig, queen.saints

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Lost
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • I am become death, destroyer of worlds.
  • Religion: Lost
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #114 on: November 16, 2019, 09:20:02 PM »
Quote
What St Thomas makes clear in the above quote was evidenced in Our Lord’s day.  Did He choose women to be apostles and disciples to endure the rigours involved and from whom authority is derived to govern His Church?  No. How many females are doctors of His Church in which intellectual supremacy and rigour are demanded?  Until 1970 there were none.


St. Hildegrad.... St. Catherina of Siena... St. Theresa of Avila... St. Therese Liseux...

Oh sure, their works weren't valuable until the Vatican said so. Okay.

Not to mention all those female leaders in the Early Church, like Saint Phoebe and Saint Olympias... Maybe Saint Junia.



Quote
We know the power His Mother had over Him at the time, has now and will continue to have for eternity.

Why should His Mother have any power over Him, considering she was of an inferior nature?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 09:22:47 PM by TheReturnofLive »
"I go to seek a Great Perhaps."
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5223
  • Thanked: 2932 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2019, 09:49:13 PM »

Why should His Mother have any power over Him, considering she was of an inferior nature?

Evan an infant knows that inferiors have power over their superiors. Look at the power that children have to obtain things from their parents. Look at the power we have to obtain things from God.

Mary has the power to obtain things from her Son like at the Wedding Feast at Cana, not despite her inferior nature, but because of her inferior nature. All throughout the Gospels Jesus shows mercy towards the weak and the little and helpless, while He spurns the rich and the great and the powerful.

So it was back then, and so it remains today. Children receive blessing from their parents because they are small. So too do wives from their husbands. But wives who demand to be treated as equals lose all such privileges, and quickly become unhappy, angry, bitter and vengeful.
 
The following users thanked this post: queen.saints

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 54 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #116 on: November 16, 2019, 09:54:05 PM »
 

So, yes, it is lack of opportunity preventing women from careers in fields in which, granted, some have excelled, equalling or bettering their male counterparts .  But that lack of opportunity is due to the fact that her Creator has other plans for her and endowed her with particular qualities best suited to His plan.  It is He who is responsible for this ‘lack of opportunity’ and any objection to it should be directed towards Him.

This I agree with. God did give her other qualities, and He does have other plans. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is less intelligent than a man. The intelligence of either sex has nothing to do with it.
 

Offline red solo cup

  • John 6:56
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5596
  • Thanked: 2363 times
  • Religion: Fair weather Catholic
"It's so lonely 'round the fields of Athenry"
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1407
  • Thanked: 956 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #118 on: November 17, 2019, 07:44:39 AM »
This I agree with. God did give her other qualities, and He does have other plans. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is less intelligent than a man. The intelligence of either sex has nothing to do with it.

A sex doesn't have intelligence.
 

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 54 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #119 on: November 17, 2019, 12:27:06 PM »


More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.



So you are quoting CC stating that the Gospel has placed women on a throne...hmm. Ok. You also quote St. Thomas saying that women are good for sex and breeding, but that men are better for all else. You also love quoting Tertullian and other fathers/patristics/etc on this issue. Make up your mind sir.

Firstly, women do have a great dignity, perhaps greater than man, being that she was created from man and not from dust. To be mother of all living things, and ultimately mother of the savior, her raw material had greater dignity than man's. This does not make her more intelligent, but it does give her a great dignity. (see The Return of Love)
Spiritual writers have looked at her, coming from the rib of Adam, to mean that she is is equal. Created from his side to be by his side, not from his head to rule over him, nor from his foot to be tread upon, but from his side. Women being subject to their husbands was a post-fall command. It forces a women to be humble, humility being the opposite of pride, which led to the fall. Throughout all of history there are more examples than you can count of intellectual, spiritual, and physical superiors being subject to authority that is weaker than them in intellectual acumen, spiritual life, or physical strength. It is good for all society to have a hierarchy and order. Someone needs to be in charge for things to run smoothly whether you are talking about a pot-luck or the moon landing. The leaders are not necessarily more intelligent, although obviously they can be, they are simply the leader. Authority and intellectual superiority do not go together by default.

Secondly, it is scandalous for you to cherry-pick quotes from patristics or anyone else that paint a women's role in the world and in the church is so terrible a light. Do you want women to walk away from the church? Do you want women to lose faith in their vocations? Rather than feeling like she is doing a beautiful worthy thing in loving her husband and raising her children, do you like the idea of women feeling like cattle and never-to-speak breeders? You should think about where this harmful pseudo-research you do is going.

In that article you pulled a few lines from, it specifically stated that Aquinas was hugely influenced by Aristotle; who thought women were a genetic accident. All sperm was supposed to lead to a male child, and if a female came out it was a defect of nature. St. Thomas was a speculative theologian, he applied human reason to Divine revelation to see what he could figure out about our faith and our world. He was brilliant, and he gave a gift to our church and to our pursuit of right thought which can never be discounted. He is however, allowed to be wrong sometimes. For you to quote him as saying that women are for breeding and men better for all else, is to do a huge disservice to him. He was so much more than that, but of course, you have to trot out his opinion on this to make everybody else feel like the argument is won. It is not. He used the quotes of St. Paul about wives, to apply to subordination by all women to all men, and then he assumes the reason for this is because of men having a higher intellect. You are allowed to disagree with this. Men being more intelligent than women is not dogma.

There are different meanings to the word equality obviously. That is part of the limit of human communication. When I say women are equal to men, I am saying that women have the same level of dignity, the same goodness of nature, and the same God-given intelligence as men. I am not saying that men and women should have the same level of authority in the home, I am not saying that female religious should not seek out guidance from holy men, and I am not saying a woman's proper place is in the corporate or academic world. I will continue to argue however, that this is because God has ordained her to be the heart of society and has given her a different calling than man, not because she is less intelligent.