Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

Discussion related to living as a Catholic in the single state of life. As long as a topic is being discussed from the perspective of a single Catholic then it will be on-topic.

Tobias and Sarah's story is from the Book of Tobit, and his journey is guided by Saint Raphael.
Learn More: Tobias & Sarah as led by Saint Raphael

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Michael-410923 said: Well, the original story was about 'war on men' discussing why men were see...
(Quote) Michael-410923 said:




Well, the original story was about 'war on men' discussing why men were seemingly unfairly criticized in society at large. The two major criticisms of men I have experienced are:
1)Men have an unfair amount of power in the workplace. 2)Men don't earn enough to provide.
They both concern the status of women, but unfairly addressed means men are put down unfairly.

As for #1, equality means women may be seen as competitors. This means affirmative action may be opposed by someone who believes in equality. Many women take the feminist position that affirmative action is appropriate, even though a man may be handicapped because of it. So, the man is criticized as being a misogynist. As for #2 if a woman does not date a man who earns less, or shuns him for lack of pay, that is understandable if their combined income is less than the average family income. However, men are often relegated to a pocketbook, and have to pay for children while being alienated from them. The article talked about some men not wanting to become married, and fatigued by such prevalent attitudes.

It is unfortunate that couples do not derive similar happiness from material consumption. However that is up to the couple. I don't like to travel as some women do, for example. Those things are unique to the couple.

--hide--
#1 - As far as affirmative action goes, I think the person that has the best skills for the job should be the one to get it. It may be a man or may be a woman, it depends on the particular situation.


#2 - I don't have a problem dating somebody that makes less than me. My dad was not successful according to the "world's" notion of success, however, he was always there for us and worked a job he did not like for many years to take care of us. He never quit, even when it was tough. That is success in my eyes. We did not have a lot but we had each other and he never resented it to my knowledge. I grew up in an 800 sq foot house where my mom still lives. I had everything I needed and more.

Society in general has become too materialistic. I know I am old fashioned but there is one 1 small TV in my house that is rarely on, no WII (or other types of those games). That is on purpose. We have fun being with each other in my house because in the end that is all we really have. Just my 2 cents. God bless

Nov 25th 2012 new

i have little time to give to the forum.......

Nor have i read the article cited in the OP

Nor do i have enough intellectual prowess to offer much here, but if i could just say something.

First of all, here I am speaking only of radical feminism (which is the hatred of all things feminine, basically); I am not speaking of sound feminism, which can be espoused by our Mother the Church. The two are different. So don't get me wrong here.

It is pretty certain that a fair amount of social reengineering has been going on over the past several decades--whether it be in television, institutes of 'higher' learning, etc.

And often the attack is made upon men.......Wait, let's be more specific: WHITE men.

The white male is the great villain of history: the colonialist, the conquistador, the churchmen of europe, etc. The white male must be knocked down in favor of the woman, and even better if he can be knocked down in favor of a woman of color. This has been seen with 'someone's own two eyes' for example in the brutal treatment some men have suffered by women who have been promoted in certain law firms in NYC.

The white male is the villain of history. The white male must be made to look like a fool.

This is obvious if you look at some television commercials, wherein the male is an idiot, to be corrected by the woman; this also applies to television of recent decades. You go from Father knows Best and Dick van Dyke (where Mary Tyler Moore is a great housewife) to the Mary Tyler Moore show, wherein she is transformed into a dominant career girl. Social Reengineering.

And other modern tv shows where the male/father is so often an idiot, to be talked down to and corrected by the woman/wife.

These are all facts: the white male is the villain of history. And he must be brought down.

It is played out again in the minds of feminist Catholics who rage at the male clergy, dominating women, making all the decisions. This has led to the wildest aberrations in womens religious life, which are often reduced to lesbian witch festivals, in which womanspirit and the goddess are celebrated--at times by partially clothed 'sisters'.

We should also consider the article by Clare Will Faulhaber, who wrote, "Women do not need men. After all even the Incarnation was accomplished without a man!" Wow.

I personally don't worry if a bride were to make more than i do. I am never going to be wealthy.......Nor am I concerned about women having so many opportunities to get great jobs and improve their lives. I am thrilled about this.

But in some sectors, the thought is that women must be avenged upon men--white men, and it is happening in many sectors.

Nov 25th 2012 new
(Quote) Eric-114571 said: In any partnership involving money when one person makes significantly more than the other then it's...
(Quote) Eric-114571 said:



In any partnership involving money when one person makes significantly more than the other then it's clear who's doing the heavy lifting. I don't see how a guy can be said to be "providing" if he makes less.

Let's apply logic to this: if the man makes less and can still be seen to be "providing" then the wife who makes more logically is also providing -- in fact doing it better than the man. The man is not the main provider.

Ref. the specifics about the woman's career that you made and her changing: I'm suggesting her choices will have an impact on the number of choices she has but it's not wrong. If I choose to make my living by flipping hamburgers at McDonald's and working full time then that's honest work and nothing wrong with it. But I can tell you that decision will limit my opportunities in the dating world. It's not my place to say what people "should" do -- they have choices. I'm just agreeing with the Fox News article that men are designed and wired to want to do both provide and protect and need to be needed for both.

--hide--


I understand what you are saying. So maybe I should just be looking for men who make a lot more than me. Maybe that will solve the problem.
Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Marirose-887295 said: #1 - As far as affirmative action goes, I think the person that has the best skills for the jo...
(Quote) Marirose-887295 said:

#1 - As far as affirmative action goes, I think the person that has the best skills for the job should be the one to get it. It may be a man or may be a woman, it depends on the particular situation.


#2 - I don't have a problem dating somebody that makes less than me. My dad was not successful according to the "world's" notion of success, however, he was always there for us and worked a job he did not like for many years to take care of us. He never quit, even when it was tough. That is success in my eyes. We did not have a lot but we had each other and he never resented it to my knowledge. I grew up in an 800 sq foot house where my mom still lives. I had everything I needed and more.

Society in general has become too materialistic. I know I am old fashioned but there is one 1 small TV in my house that is rarely on, no WII (or other types of those games). That is on purpose. We have fun being with each other in my house because in the end that is all we really have. Just my 2 cents. God bless

--hide--

Nicely said Marirose: Can we go on a date? lol!!!

Nov 25th 2012 new
War on men? Nah!

I think it is just pure wrong to assume two cookie-cutter sex-roles. People are so very different: we cannot presume to compare all men to all women. This only results in resentment and dissapointment.

I think that there are a good deal of men who are ready for companionship with women, but if they insist on dominating a relationship with a woman, that is where many women will rebel or back down, and this could come out of fear! Likewise, when women take on much of what has traditionally been deemed "male territory," to many men is it as much of a "turn-off," as when men are seen in traditionally "female" territory. Please note, that these pink or blue boundries are based on a person's socialization, so they would vary from person to person. A good deal of what is expected, can be determined by age, faith, even heritage and economics.

I think that part of the problem is that so many of us, especially baby-boomers, were raised witnesseing very traditional sex roled households. Making such drastic change in roles is still forging an uncharted path.

Women started going to work in masses during WWII, out of economic necessity, not to create a war on men!

The first women to leave their homes and go to work, did so out of economic necessity-----mostly to support their children, not to strip men of their masculinity.

Most women do want a husband to lead the family: but he does have to be qualified for her-------

These are some of the parameters that I find are more likely to result in a good balance for male leadership in the relationship:

1. He is physically larger than she is: stronger, taller, bigger

2. He is older than she is

3. He makes or has more money than she does

4. He has more life experience than she does.

5. He has some qualities that she lacks, whatever they may be.
Nov 25th 2012 new

[quote]Elizabeth-462557 said:


I can agree with the article if you start with the 1970s. However, the 1970s did not happen in a vacumn. The "easy divorce" laws of the 1960s left many divorced women with the children, very little child support, and no career with which to support themselves. They watched their ex-husbands go off with their expanding careers and the financial stability those careers provided their ex-husbands. Add the decline of the influence of Christianity, and women and children were left out in the cold. Of course, this analysis is a generalization, but then the article was one, too, and any discussion of human nature, by definition, is usually a generalization.

When we, as a society, return to our Judeo/Christian values and "no fault" divorce is an escape hatch of the past... families, men and women can get back to what we do best...loving one another, committing to one another and our off spring, and enjoying the love God intended us to have.

I had a psychology professor who theorized that society functions much like a pendulum...we go from one extreme to another. I am praying we are so far left that the pendulum will swing back right...then women can be women and men can be men without political correctness corrupting what God made so right.


As for me, I am too old to change. I may support myself with my profession, but I am very much the lady I was raised to be and expect men to be the leaders, fathers, warriors, husbands, and lovers that God created them to be.


That's just my two cents.


- Elizabeth

I agree with everything except the "no fault" divorce. I would have been stuck without it. If one party just quits, well, there is nothing the other can do about it except pick up the pieces and move on. I've often thought of my contributions to the end and have read everything ai can to teach my children from my mistakes. Think I'm going to pick up the books David suggested.

Nov 25th 2012 new
Here is a good defense for women in dating men who believe that women are not feminine enough:

1. Put on a dress and look like a woman.

(Sometimes we don't have much control over prevailing styles. If shoes or clothing looks too masculine, don't buy into it).
Nov 25th 2012 new

I read the Fox News article. It is jaw-droppingly accurate -- not for ALL men, or ALL women, but for enough of each to generalize. And no, I do not think the word "War" on men is too strong. The best manifestation of it is found in divorce courts. Not in ALL divorce courts, or in EVERY divorce case, but again, enough of them to generalize. I believe that many men of good character are left bewildered, and I believe many women have been duped. Sure, we can trace the problems back to the 1960s/70s Sexual Revolution, but perhaps the problem can be traced even farther back, to World War II, and the economic necessity of women entering the workforce. Satan is extraordinarily crafty -- catalyze something intrinsically evil, like a world war, then attach many unforeseen and subsequent "consequences" to it. That is why I pray the St. Michael's Prayer daily, and I hope others do too. I just wonder -- when will this prayer be answered affirmatively in Heaven?

Nov 25th 2012 new

(Quote) Ralph-721288 said: I read the Fox News article. It is jaw-droppingly accurate -- not for ALL men, or ALL women, but ...
(Quote) Ralph-721288 said:

I read the Fox News article. It is jaw-droppingly accurate -- not for ALL men, or ALL women, but for enough of each to generalize. And no, I do not think the word "War" on men is too strong. The best manifestation of it is found in divorce courts. Not in ALL divorce courts, or in EVERY divorce case, but again, enough of them to generalize. I believe that many men of good character are left bewildered, and I believe many women have been duped. Sure, we can trace the problems back to the 1960s/70s Sexual Revolution, but perhaps the problem can be traced even farther back, to World War II, and the economic necessity of women entering the workforce. Satan is extraordinarily crafty -- catalyze something intrinsically evil, like a world war, then attach many unforeseen and subsequent "consequences" to it. That is why I pray the St. Michael's Prayer daily, and I hope others do too. I just wonder -- when will this prayer be answered affirmatively in Heaven?

--hide--


Seeing as how WWII wasn't the first war in the history of the world, I wonder, how did previous times handle the very same issue, which was men leaving for war and women left to do everything else? Just asking the question, because I think you are on to something, but wondering if the inustrial revolution has played a part as well.

Cat

Nov 25th 2012 new

First let me apologize to those who may have mis-interpreted my intent with this article. I can see that some of you feel that I believe that women should stay in the kitchen and let the man handle everything else. This is not my belief at all. Rather, my views on this topic is quite the opposite. I've always taken a pragmatic approach to relationships and I do what works best, not what is ideal. I would not in the least feel threatened if my future wife made more than me. I am a teacher myself (although the market is very tough where I am so I'm substituting for the moment) so more than likely my wife would probably have to work as well if we desire to have a large family.

As I read the comments, I see many think of providing in material terms, not spiritual. For the Catholic father and husband, his primary role is to lead his family to Heaven. That can be accomplished regardless if he makes less than his wife or, in rare cases, is a stay-at-home dad. I'm not chauvinistic and I encourage women to earn a living. But I do think every couple need to talk about their roles in the relationship to make sure that the man can express his masculinity and the woman her femininity. It's up to each couple to determine how that is done.

Posts 31 - 40 of 120