Beatrice Scudeler’s recent essay on the Public Discourse about Gen Z women and the internet fascination with “men who yearn” exposes a rather inconvenient truth for a culture that has spent sixty years telling women that marriage is servitude, motherhood is social death, homemaking is wasted talent, sexual restraint is repression, and masculine devotion is probably one microaggression away from a campus tribunal.
However, she points out that the strange popularity of fictional men who serve, protect, sacrifice, and desire one woman with disciplined constancy reveals that many young women still long for covenantal love even after being trained by the culture to sneer at the very conditions that make such love possible.
Modern feminism began by rightly insisting upon the equal dignity of women, because no sane Christian can deny that woman is created in the image of God with the same immortal destiny as man. Yet much of the movement gradually exchanged equality for sameness, and that exchange has become disastrous because a woman does not gain dignity by being measured according to male industrial categories or male sexual habits (cf. Gen 1:27; CCC, 2334; Mulieris Dignitatem, 6).
Sanity versus ideology
Christina Hoff Sommers, in Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women, called the older and more reasonable view “equity feminism,” which she defined as “the belief in the full social, legal, and political equality of the sexes,” and her very need to distinguish that sane position from ideological gender feminism shows how far the discussion has wandered into theatrical resentment dressed up as scholarship.
The first lie was that women are the same as men, distinct only by social conditioning. Once that fiction entered the bloodstream of education, law, media, and corporate life, womanhood itself had to be treated with suspicion because fertility, maternity, receptivity, embodied difference, and feminine genius all became embarrassing reminders that nature had failed to get approval from the faculty committee.
Camille Paglia, hardly a spokesman for Catholic domestic piety, understood this far better than most ecclesial bureaucrats. She argued throughout her famous book Sexual Personae that sexuality is bound to nature, power, aggression, beauty, and vulnerability. Meanwhile, a childish feminism that pretends away sex difference leaves women exposed to a world that deliberately misdescribes women.
The second lie was economic and industrial; women were told that their value is determined by measurable contribution to the market, which means that the mother who forms souls, governs the moral atmosphere of a home, transmits language, stabilizes a husband, civilizes children, and creates the first school of love is somehow less important than the woman who answers emails under fluorescent lights for a company that will replace her password before her obituary is printed (cf. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 19; Mulieris Dignitatem, 18).
This is where the modern world has become especially ridiculous, because it solemnly praises the care economy in policy papers while quietly despising the homemaker who actually cares, and it funds endless conferences about social fragmentation while mocking the bride and mother whose daily fidelity prevents civilization from becoming a warehouse of lonely consumers with streaming subscriptions and therapy bills (John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 42–46).
Mary Eberstadt, in Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution, argued that the sexual revolution after contraception fractured the link between sex, marriage, children, kinship, and religion. Her book remains powerful precisely because it shows that liberation produced loneliness, family instability, pornography, relational confusion, and the strange misery of people who gained permission for everything and lost the meaning of nearly everything.
The third lie was educational arrogance. Women were told that schooling would liberate them from needing men for anything, although education worthy of the name should prepare a person for truth, wisdom, virtue, vocation, and service, rather than train women to treat dependence as degradation and marriage as a remedial program for those too sentimental to worship at the altar of self-sufficiency (cf. John Paul II, Letter to Women, 9; CCC, 2221–2231).
The tragedy is that women were encouraged to confuse need with weakness, even though every human being enters existence through dependency, matures through dependency, survives through dependency, and reaches holiness through dependency upon grace. This means that the war against needing men soon becomes a war against the human condition itself (Gen 2:18; Jn 15:5; CCC, 1996–2001).
The fourth lie was sexual liberation, which promised women freedom through availability, although it mostly trained men to pursue pleasure without covenant and trained women to call abandonment empowerment. That must be one of the most successful marketing campaigns ever devised by male irresponsibility under female-approved branding (cf. Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve After the Pill, 23–49; Louise Perry, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century, 1–18).
Louise Perry, in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, states the matter with admirable bluntness when she writes that men are encouraged into “‘cad’ mode”, pursuing “all of the pleasures of cheap sex and none of the responsibilities of commitment,” and that sentence alone deserves to be printed on every campus orientation folder in the Western world.
Pornography and dating apps intensified the damage because they transformed sexual imagination into a marketplace of restless novelty. The media industry then congratulated women for consuming and becoming explicit content while advertisers monetized their insecurity with the moral seriousness of a casino owner handing out financial advice.
Scudeler’s observation that many millennial women have been desensitized by explicit entertainment is therefore crucial, because the screen has catechized generations into sexual impatience, and once desire is trained by pornographic speed, the soul loses its taste for courtship, modesty, patience, tenderness, sacrifice, and the profoundly human drama of being chosen within covenant.
The fifth lie was anti-masculine resentment, which taught women that masculinity itself is toxic, that patriarchy explains every wound, that marital headship is domination, that male protection is oppression, and that society must be cleansed of paternal structure by experts who somehow never notice that fatherless homes, collapsing marriage rates, sexual confusion, and isolated women have followed their victory parade.
This hatred of masculinity has harmed women because most women do desire men who are strong without cruelty, protective without possession, sacrificial without weakness, and faithful without performative fragility, which is why the fantasy of “men who yearn” keeps returning through fiction after the real culture has spent decades humiliating the very virtues such men require.
The Catholic vision
The Catholic answer is neither nostalgia nor reactionary panic. The Church does not ask women to become decorative furniture inside a male household, and she does not ask men to become domestic tyrants with baptized vocabulary. Scripture gives us a nuptial and covenantal vision in which man and woman are created for communion, fruitfulness, fidelity, and holiness before the living God (Gen 1:27–28; 2:18–24; Eph 5:25–33; CCC, 1601–1605).
Genesis declares that God created humanity “male and female” and blessed them with fruitfulness, while Ephesians reveals marriage as a mystery ordered toward Christ and the Church, and Proverbs 31 praises a woman whose household governance, economic prudence, mercy, strength, wisdom, and fear of the Lord make modern caricatures of biblical femininity look painfully illiterate (Gen 1:27–28; Eph 5:25–33; Prov 31:10–31).
John Paul II gives the final corrective because his Theology of the Body sees the body as a sacramental sign of the person, since “the body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine,” and this means the female body is neither raw material for commerce nor a costume for self-invention (John Paul II, General Audience, February 20, 1980).
He also teaches that man becomes the image of God in communion, as the human person images God through the “communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning,” and this destroys every ideology that pits the sexes against each other as permanent rivals inside a cold political struggle (John Paul II, General Audience, November 14, 1979).
Therefore, Catholics must lead society rightly again by forming men who can protect without lust and women who can receive love without self-contempt, by honoring homemaking without despising education, by praising motherhood without reducing women to biology, by defending marriage without sentimental slogans, and by proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Bridegroom whose covenant love heals the wounded feminine heart and restores the masculine soul to sacrificial service (Familiaris Consortio, 11–17; Eph 5:25–33; Rev 19:7–9).
The world has lied to women with an astonishingly expensive and powerful megaphone, yet the Gospel still speaks with divine authority. Woman is neither man’s copy nor man’s enemy nor man’s toy, since she is the daughter of the Father, bride within covenant, mother according to nature or grace, and sister in Christ whose glory is found through holiness rather than imitation of the very male vices that feminism once claimed to despise (Gen 1:27; Gal 3:28; Lk 1:38; Mulieris Dignitatem, 11).
The Church must therefore preach again that freedom is ordered to love, love is ordered to covenant, covenant is ordered to life, and life is ordered to Jesus Christ. Only the Lord who came as Bridegroom can restore the feminine genius from the wreckage of ideology and teach a broken culture that men and women were made for communion rather than conquest (Jn 3:29; Eph 5:25–33; Rev 21:2; Mulieris Dignitatem, 30).
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
About sexuality, then, it’s at best an imprecision to seem to minimize the importance of sexual sins within the tattered seamless garment…
Yes, in scholastic theology the moral virtues do have a low rating, but then this concise summary:
“The highest virtue in the Scholastic traditions are the ‘theological virtues’ (faith, hope, charity), followed by the ‘intellectual virtues,’ while the ‘moral virtues’ are of the lowest order. The lowest of all was ‘temperantia’ which included chastity. Even ‘fortitude’ (courage) ranked higher. Unchastity, however, is considered a ‘CARDINAL SIN’ BECAUSE [caps added] it is the ‘source’ of so many other failings” (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse,” Ch. 5, fn. 27 on p. 456).
The homosexual lifestyle is a compounded invention also involving failure in the mentioned moral virtue of “courage,” plus the “intellectual” sin of often claiming that, because it is not binary, it is exempt from the moral virtue of “chastity.”
Boys and girls take notice, the lofty Synodal Study Grope #9 appeals to “experience” in place of the above “abstract” principles—a group-think coupling of counterfeit sexuality with a self-inflicted lobotomy.
Somebody turn the lights on…
Theology was never my thing. So were the Scholastics saying that chastity wasn’t that important (even though violations of it were “cardinal sins”)?
.
Like an afterthought. A committee sat down to draft up a list of virtues and toward the end, someone said “Temperantia is a virtue I suppose.” “Yeah, might as well through that one in there for good measure I guess.”
In classical scholasticism, the theological virtues of faith, hope, charity are ‘higher’ because they are infused directly by God (through Baptism initially). The ‘lower’ virtues are lower by virtue of their being first acquired by man, with grace.
Also, theological virtues direct man more immediately to God. God is their object. Chastity (a ‘lower’ moral virtue) has as its final and highest object, to please God, but chastity is typically most often acquired in stages. Imagine a ladder of increasing virtue attendant upon climbing (practice and effort) to perfection. Chastity would be the perfection, the gift of one’s pure and chaste sexuality, to God. Chastity is most often built upon stages of temperance. Man must first learn to temper and rein in his natural passions, concupiscences, inclinations, and natural appetites. As the acquired virtues become habits through practice and effort (with grace), man becomes more free to please God, and God is pleased to infuse greater grace.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2063.htm (See especially articles 3 and 4)
Capital sins are inclinations or temptations (arising first in thought) of human nature that give rise (if so willed) to actual personal sins. They are within humankind as a result of original sin.
As sexual intimacy is the mechanism by which God chose to make (after Adam and Eve) a human being/a new immortal human soul–something from nothing–I would have imagined it would have been more respected by theologians.
I do not understand the idea that theologians think sexual intimacy is not respected. Marriage is a sacrament.
“When freedom becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Creator himself is denied.”
PpBXVI: The Christian Image of man.
Did I hear “lights”!
They mustn’t isolate the cardinal virtues; plus the Scholastics did not do that whatever else may be their accomplishments or weak points.
In confession both married and unmarried have to be concerned with justice. You can’t go in there and tell the priest you promise to practice temperance better.
My entry below, Elias Galy, June 15, 2026 at 2:32 pm, 2nd paragraph – it is outlining paradigms of intemperance. So if you are “unjust but temperate” you also have to confess that.
YES
The very title of this post “others” women and contradicts your assertion insisting upon the equal dignity of women, “because no sane Christian can deny that woman is created in the image of God with the same immortal destiny as man”. It is demeaning to discuss human women made in the image of God as “females”. They are far more than reproductive vessels as you correctly state and equal to man in their humanity, dignity, imaginations and intellect because God made them that way. The “man hating” feminist is a creation of the popular imagination and should not be propagated out of an allegiance to truth.
It is demeaning to discuss human women made in the image of God as “females”.
I just checked with my wide. Her reaction was “whut?”
It’s amusing to see you presume to speak for (all) women.
It’s amusing to refer to a woman as “your wide”.
If you look at the standard Qwerty Keyboard, you will note the D and F keys are adjacent. But for the context insensitive “W I F E”.
I still have one.
I am very happy to be called a “wife” to my husband.
.
You sound like a bitter.
I speak for the correct use of the English language, your wife’s unfamiliarity with the topic not withstanding.
My wife and I are both well educated and literate.
Unlike you, she isn’t a shrew or a nag.
By the way, as a piece of advice, never insult a man’s mother, sister or wife, especially if you don’t know him. Most men understand this instinctively as a caution and a courtesy. In your case, your lack of caution really, really needs courtesy as compensation.
“It is demeaning to discuss human women made in the image of God as “females”.”
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
And gave Adam the right to name her. Woman he called her not “female”. Be respectful like Adam.
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
― Billy Madison (movie)
Today’s words children are:
logomachy and tedious.
Select whatever words you want to describe the sexes, but if you think your feigned outrage is in any way going to to affect anybody else’s choice, you are delusional.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Did You Know, Logomachy:
‘It doesn’t take much to start people arguing about words, but there’s no quarrel about the origin of logomachy. It comes from the Greek roots logos, meaning “word” or “speech,” and machesthai, meaning “to fight,” and it entered English in the mid-1500s. If you’re a word enthusiast, you probably know that logos is the root of many English words (monologue, neologism, logic, and most words ending in -logy, for example), but what about other derivatives of machesthai? Actually, this is a tough one even for word whizzes. Only a few very rare English words come from machesthai. Here are two of them: heresimach (“an active opponent of heresy and heretics”) and naumachia (“an ancient Roman spectacle representing a naval battle”).’
Epic.
My objection is real.
“And” is not the name of the Being who gave Adam the right to name animals.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
I presume that you know God’s Third Commandment? Are there words to describe its meaning?
About the word females, St. John Paul II gives us this about concurrent creation:
“Genesis 1:27 observes that this essential truth about man refers both to the male and to the female: ‘God created man in his image…male and female he created them’.”
[then this footnote] “The original text states: “God created man (hadam–a collective noun: ‘humanity’?) in his own image: in the image of God he created him: male (zakar–masculine) and female (uneqebah–feminine) he created them” (Gen 1:27)” (General Audience of September 12, 1979, fn. 2 in “The Original Unity of Man and Woman,”part of “The Theology of the Body: 1979-1985).
Is “male” disrespectful to men?
Yes. We are men and women not animals distinguished merely by genitals.
What distinguishes men from women if not biology?
Bluntly, Gerard’s commentary exhibits “gamma” tendencies. Not the right male to ask about females.
Thank you for this beautiful essay.
“Meanwhile, a childish feminism that pretends away sex difference leaves women exposed to a world that deliberately misdescribes women.”
If it were only childish. Instead, it’s schizophrenic. On one hand, we have the intellectual descendants of the seminal anthem of 70’s feminism, Helen Reddy’s “I am woman, hear me roar” declaring women to be “invincible”, on the other hand, every corporate and government entity runs a cabal of revenue sucking HR Karens (of both sexes) dedicated to ensuring that female employees are insulated from unwanted glances, passes and other indignities on the basis that these ethereal, contrived indignities are traumatic and disabling.
An incisive essay with loads of true statements. However, the remedy is not intellectual, because today everyone is an intellect. We are overthinking everything, this is the illness itself.
It would probably help women to see masculinity as good, if they did not grow up seeing boys looking at porn, and hearing it called “normal”, or a “need”. Or hearing boys taught that the only rule for sexual morality is to get her consent – rendering her wishes the only control on his porn-formed desires.
This is not just about lies women have been told about men. It’s also about the direct and repeated observations girls make of boys, and of how their elders deal with and explain their behavior.
It would probably help women to see masculinity as good, if they did not grow up seeing boys looking at porn, and hearing it called “normal”, or a “need”.
Ordinarily, you are a sensible poster, but here I think you are missing something.
First, what exactly as are they looking at? There seems to be no shortage of “porn stars”. And then there’s the ordinary movies with the obligatory partial or full nudity? What about ordinary women and unfortunately girls wearing the “itsy-bitsy, teen-weeny yellow polka dot bikinis, especially with the emergence of “the thong”. I can’t even go to a gym without seeing women wearing attire that looks like it was purchased at Sherwin Williams. And as an aside, women have their own porn problem. Re: “Fifty Shades of Gray” and “The Black Swan” (and no, I don’t mean the book on extra-consequential events by Nassim Taleb)
Second, if that “consent” was never or at least infrequently conferred absent “I do” it wouldn’t be seen as attainable apart from a ring and a date.
Men aren’t to be excused from being cads and I won’t try. On the other hand, I don’t suffer any illusions that women aren’t affected by concupiscence.
I was actually not trying to contribute to the battle of the sexes at all here.
If girls are dressing immodestly, they are doing so because they believe they are supposed to, or that it will get them something they want. They are either taught that by their elders, or their elders are failing to correct them. This is EXACTLY as it is for boys looking at porn. The problem here is not even men being cads or women being immodest. It’s about parents not correcting their children, and giving them into the care of those who do not correct them either, and subjecting them to bad influences whom the children are not at liberty to avoid.
Parents’ failure to guide, protect, and discipline their children is the direct cause of their children growing up to fear and dislike the opposite sex. They permit and normalize behavior that warrants that fear and dislike.
Absolutely Amanda. I found this essay quite offensive. We hear so much about extremist feminist and so little about men refusing to grow up. As the mother of a large family, boys and girls, I share the concerns of young women not wanting to go near man/boys who have been reared on a diet of filth. In that situation girls are wise to have nothing to do with them.
“I found this essay quite offensive.”
Your displeasure is your problem. You didn’t even bother to list your objections.
“concerns of young women not wanting to go near man/boys who have been reared on a diet of filth.”
They are on diet of filth offered by women. No porn stars, no porn.
“men refusing to grow up”
What is your barometer to determine men aren’t “growing up” and what makes you think women are? The blue hair, the nose rings?
As I survey the landscape, I see a lot of immaturity on both sides. Accountability and responsibility are foreign concepts to entirely too many young.
No. Your offense at Alice and Amanda’s perspective is a you problem.
I didn’t express offense, but if you were in less of a hurry to respond, you’d realize that, assuming you could comprehend factual dispute, but somebody who writes jeremiads about the word “female” being demeaning clearly isn’t attached to facts.
I am going to presume you read the entire article and therefore I am certain you saw that the article presents a balanced critique of the failures found in typical modern male vices as well. However, the entire premise and focus of this article is how secular social movements have targeted and attacked women, with significant allocation of moral culpability on the failure of men. I am concerned That if someone could be offended by this article, it potentially signals that one believes that all these paradigmatic movements of feminism have been entirely good. I truly hope this isn’t the case but I’d recommend reading up on the writings of salient individuals like Carrie Gress who have done copious research on this topic.
I also am not sure what circles you are part of but there is a plethora of writing critiquing failures in male vice. A massive component of my broadcast work involves that. In fact, the material critiquing male failure is disproportionately more than those that critique failures in female vice. Why this piece would offend is baffling to me, but it is precisely the negative reception of criticism of vice in women that is the reason why so many commentators and speakers don’t speak enough into this area, much to the detriment of women themselves. The failures are on both fronts and we would be dishonest if we pretended otherwise. The remedy is the re-embracing of the classical, biblical, and magisterial reality of male and female roles and virtues, and the complementarity of the male and female design in marriage and the family. To that end, we ought to welcome biblical wisdom and reason being spoken into both fronts for the sake of exhorting virtue in both men and women together.
I did not find it offensive. Women are being taught to dislike men. One of the ways that is done is by bringing up boys who are very easy to dislike – and then telling girls that this is just the way men are, by nature rather than by corruption. A girl who is taught that boys and men who behave that way are corrupted, and has her imagination pointed toward boys and men who are chaste, is not going to dislike men, or even hate those who are corrupted. She will be able to imagine the good that might have been while avoiding the evil that is.
“Women are being taught to dislike men. One of the ways that is done is by bringing up boys who are very easy to dislike”
Newsflash: There’s a lot of girls being raised to be easy to dislike as well.
This article is about the female imagination being corrupted. It’s in the title and everything.
I’ve read that quite a few women look at porn these days, too Amanda. It may be a greater problem for men but with smartphones it’s easily available to everyone and all ages. Sadly.
Women trail men by about 20 percentage points. As with boys, I wonder how much of this is due to exposure early in life. Our society does a terrible job of protecting childrens’ hearts.
When I was thirteen, my friend up the street got into the man who he thought was his father’s “stash”. His actual father actually paid a functional alcoholic with issues from WW ii or Korea trauma to marry the women he had an affair with, but either did not or could not marry.
That image is burned in my mind. I can’t “unsee” it. Males are visual animals.
At about the same point in time, the grocery store where my mother shopped was filled with a rack of “romance novels”. Since the suffix =graphy means writing, their titillating paperbacks with the cover images of men with open shirts and flowing hair, grasping a woman around the waist did for them, what their husband’s magazines did for him.
The biggest difference is the romance novel could be left on the nightstand.
As I understand it, none of us can “unsee” (or “unread”) things, much as we may want to. Though we can ask Our Lady to heal the memory and our imaginations.
I’ve heard romance novels referred to as something like “porn for the emotions”. The point is not the image, the point is that the men in the books are designed to appeal emotionally to the woman, generally by being as thoroughly unrealistic as pornographic images. The main advantage is that young children are far less likely to be damaged by the imagery in passing.
I agree our society fails in that.
20% points isn’t very far behind. I actually didn’t realize it was that close.
20% points is a lot, actually, as far as statistical differences go – but it is not enough to avoid having a slight majority of women looking at porn at least monthly. Our societal problem with rightly ordered intimacy is just that bad.
I expect it causes the same kinds of problems for women seeing men in an honoring, loving, and realistic manner as it does for men seeing women in a loving, honoring, and realistic manner. To shove this in kids’ faces, teach them it’s normal and natural, let them get hooked, and then expect them to grow up and readily enter healthy relationships is moronic.
Sexuality is under justice before temperance. It is understood first of all as a power. then, that it bears and enacts its characteristics particular and personal, with generative consequence that is public.
We are weak and prone to self-will but without good instruction we would have no just instruction and reference point with nothing calling to us aright; and we’d fumble with life. Or worse, it would be man for himself working it all out if he could do right or not, with paramour men in the mindset ever going at women.
In the Fouviere Cathedral mosaics of deadly sin, lust is portrayed as “luxury” imaged by the horny goat. Interestingly, in the same set of mosaics, envy is named as invidiousness as in serpentine and pride named as superbia as a badge.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mosaics_of_sins_in_Basilique_Notre-Dame_de_Fourvi%C3%A8re
The new ideological “norm” seems to be driving our need for female equality.
We continue to exhaust ourselves with something so apparently simple… the acknowledgment and equal contribution of half of God’s creation. Maybe not so equal contribution… sacred bearers of new life, nurturers for the quality of family life, and champions of moral family cohesion. Oh, I forgot a marked difference in libido with the dude usually the “aggressor”. Some say that female subservience is displayed in the sacred walls of Catholicism.
Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man “and women”, in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Maybe we men should return to our respect for women’s equality by tipping our fedoras as we approach her.
Men and women are not “EQUALS” in the sense that the political left (i.e. you) employs it, fungible, indistinct, interchangeable.
They are complements, each an equally necessary part of a two piece puzzle.
They are equally made in the image of our creator. They are equal.
Equal but not identical.
“The book of nature is one and indivisible”
Caritas in veritatis
Let’s trust ppBXVI and Natural Law 😉
MorganD, I cannot help myself! Perhaps my temperance needs more practice.
But who is the ‘her’ that men should toward ‘her’ tip their fedoras? Do you know many guys who wear those things these days? One fellow at my parish sports one on his way into and out of Sunday Mass, but I don’t see any more. But he never tips his hat, even though he indicates in other ways that he sees and appreciates my God-given biology.
Your acknowledgment that women are maybe not equal to half of God’s creation is absolutely decent. Indeed, they may be more than half in the eyes of larger-than-life and virtuous, good men. But women of humility will seldom allow that sentiment.
Thank you, and Happy Father’s Day! (Pardon moi if you are female. I do not guess that you are, but perhaps I am wrong.)
Proverbs 31:10-31 begins:
A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
I miss seeing hats. Gloves, too.
No. Acknowledge that she is made as you are as an equal image of your creator and don’t wear fedoras.
No you don’t speak for the proper use of English. If one looks up the word female in an English dictionary, no where does it indicate the word is used as a term of abuse, derision or as a pejorative.
Of course:
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
Again your misogyny doesn’t negate the proper usage of English. Education in style and usage are a good thing. Perhaps you should look into it.
A sincere question Mr. Gerard, is English your first language? Thank you.
Sincerely, mrscracker, my assessment (as an English teacher) is that Gerard does not understand English language usage. S/HE would do her/him-self a good deed and take his/her own advice by LOOKING INTO the proper use and style of the English language.
Gerard’s grammar is incorrect in the second sentence of his/her post directly preceding yours: “Education” is the subject of Gerard’s second sentence, and “Education” is a singular subject. The verb Gerard chooses is “are” (This is a plural verb.). Subjects and verbs in a sentence must ‘agree’ in singularity or plurality.
Gerard here and in other posts has failed to demonstrate good usage or understanding of English style. By objective and standardized measurement, Gerard’s proficiency ranks in or near a sixth-grade level.
Yes indeed it is. Thank you.
Yes it is. Thank you. But I have definitely been influenced by the study of other languages and how they reflect their cultures.
Do you have something intelligent to offer other than insults?
But since you are going to insult, here’s my take on you. You are a politically left of center gamma male. You think your are clever, but in actuality, you are tedious.
Gammas have very little personal interaction with women other than their mothers or sisters, because women instinctively loathe gammas. As a result, gammas take extreme views of women, either returning that antipathy or deifying them. You are the second variety.
It’s lovely that you have put so much thought into analyzing me!
Thanks to those who responded. I’m sure my old male body will absorb the criticism.
Yes, women are the choice of many of the opposite sex. God said, “go forth and multiply and fill the Earth”. Adam had the seed, Eve had the work!!!
The fedora reveals my age. It was the semi-formal headwear and the hallmark of many stars. Humphry Bogart, Spencer Tracy and others.
Focusing on my Engligh avoids the message told. Hats off!!!
https://thefashionchoice.com/what-is-fedora-hat/
Thank you Mr Morgan. I vote for fedoras and tipping hats. A little courtesy and decorum would go a long way in our present world.
You have a blessed day. 🙏🙂
Wouldn’t it be great to see an essay (or several) written by women about the role of men, the morality of men, the etc, etc, etc, of men as written by women? Wait…women do not have the Lived Experience of being men. So there would be a lot missing in the perspective, wouldn’t there? Somehow, many men write and intellectualize to their head’s content never perhaps even noticing that they lack the lived experience of what it might be like to be a woman in a world designed by patriarchs on the societal level. Then the usual sniping and acid remarks appear here which, I imagine, are meant to be rebuttals of some kind. There is so little actual kindness, attempt to understand a different POV, or communication beyond sarcasm and criticism that I cannot reconcile the chatter here with genuine attempts to learn from others or to show respect to the opinions and points of view that others hold. Just argument. Not dialogue. Sad.
Beg pardon my points are well made for both men and women. Somewheres above one Gerard refers to women as “human women”. That surely wasn’t a autocorrect bless my heart. And if a woman had written on a comparable topic, would she ever say “human women”? And a priest?
I refer to people as people. Not by their genitalia in the way one would with a breeding dog.
That makes everything coherent in some way you haven’t explained.
Someone else could build on that, human woman, synodal woman, traditional woman, ordinary form woman. Maybe? Then which one is which.
Human Gerard or just Gerard?
Our male or female body parts aren’t separate from our person or our identity. God created the package as a whole.
There’s nothing wrong about our bodies, what makes them unique, or anything else Our Creator gifted us with. But thank you for bringing that up.
There are myriads of women criticizing men. Usually their screeds are in the leftist canon. I’m surprised you are unaware of them.
Agreed . Men who can’t stand criticism are often found hiding in the weeds of right leaning politics
Gerard this is another one of your bobble-head bobbles. Parish abortionists are taking cover among the credulous and the liberals and the wayward clergy.
And mobster types in and out of the parish.
Abortion/contraception is THE KILLING of a person. It’s not a debate on an issue about convincing and “getting forgiven”. Yes there can be forgiveness for abortion/contraception; it does not lead into parish-led propagation of killing nor of propagation of ideology whether surreptitiously or openly done.
Parishoners are not there to circle wagons around killing as a solidarity.
You kill the baby you can’t “bring him back to show and share the Redemption, not even argue about it”.
It’s tough to be criticized if you are a fragile snowflake.
Mr. Pitch, loosen your female noose. “Myriads of women criticizing men.”
Your cryptic use of “myriads” shows a fault in observation. Not like you.
Be well