Struggling Being Single

[Basilisa Marie]

First, the Hebrew in Genesis doesn't translate to "The Man" but "man" as in "gender neutral word for human."

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1323020865' post='2344379']
It's unfortunate that these days, singles "ministry" in the Catholic Church is either dominated by bitter divorced women (one Catholic singles event I attended years ago could have been a commercial for extra strength Midol) and/or by people who have fallen for the lesbian/feminazi/career woman agenda (the whole "you don't need a spouse/children to be fulfilled" line, as well as others that are anti-biblical). It goes to kill the male drive to pursue, or many males have to seek wives outside the Church or wiith unfaithful Catholic women, with risky/disastrous results in that they may fall away from the Church.
[/quote]


Second, I find the above quote to be offensive and extremely misogynistic, and has absolutely no place in Catholic theology.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Basilisa Marie

[PennyLane]

[quote name='LinaSt.Cecilia2772' timestamp='1322943067' post='2344123']
Jackie Francois is a great speaker that i have to privelege of hearing at a steubenville conference this past summer. She has an amesome youtube channel where I found this video. She is very relatable and accurate in how to deal with the ache of singlehood. Hope it helps!

[url="http://youtu.be/myIfGdNt1AY"]http://youtu.be/myIfGdNt1AY[/url]
[/quote]

Thank you!

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1323020997' post='2344381']

And that is how people get stuck in the "friends zone".
[/quote]

You can affirm a man without making it seem like you're his sister. A real man would notice that a real woman makes him desire to be more of a man of God. There are ways to stay out of the friend zone, but neglecting assuring a man in his holy masculinity is not the way, nor does it seem to agree with the Theology of the Body that JP2 set forth.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1323027005' post='2344442']
First, the Hebrew in Genesis doesn't translate to "The Man" but "man" as in "gender neutral word for human."
[/quote]

However you translate it, the point is that Ms. Francois is in error for the reasons I have stated above. With the exception of those who have been called to celibacy, we were not built to be alone, but rather to be married - yes, in communion not just with God, but with a spouse. People should not be made to feel ashamed for seeking marriage.

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1323027005' post='2344442']
Second, I find the above quote to be offensive and extremely misogynistic, and has absolutely no place in Catholic theology.
[/quote]

But it is historically accurate. When did this whole "culture of singleness" explode? The late 1960s through the 1970s (just check the studies that show how the average age at which people get married has increased since 1960), which coincided with two important events/trends:

1) The rise of contraception (due partly to the advent of the birth control pill, and also due partly to the Griswold v. Connecticut case in the US Supreme Court which struck down laws banning contraceptives)
2) The women's (aka "feminist") movement, which included anti-male/anti-family agenda points, putting career ahead of family (and if they wanted to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex without the procreative, well, how convenient it was that all these contraceptives came along, eh?)

And what is so offensive about traditional gender roles?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1323032602' post='2344506']

You can affirm a man without making it seem like you're his sister. A real man would notice that a real woman makes him desire to be more of a man of God. There are ways to stay out of the friend zone, but neglecting assuring a man in his holy masculinity is not the way, nor does it seem to agree with the Theology of the Body that JP2 set forth.
[/quote]

I think I quoted too much. My reply was to the first sentence, which asserted that one should not look at someone as a potential future spouse.

[FaithAndReason21]

Well Miss Pennylane, I'm sorry you consider me a bullet to be dodged! I'm sure there is some fine lady out there who would appreciate me for who I am and for the love I try to give. One thing you can't accuse me of is lack of commitment, because as you know you needn't be single; that's your choice. Happy Feast Day, by the way!

Still praying for reconcilliation...


P.S. I used to be more active on phatmass and know some of ya out there, my old screenname was a guest account, FockeWulf!

[XIX]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1323020997' post='2344381']

And that is how people get stuck in the "friends zone".
[/quote]
It's tricky, cause you don't want to come off as desperate/clingy, either.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='PennyLane' timestamp='1322318996' post='2340735']
Mostly venting and prayer-seeking...

I struggle being single... I had a Catholic relationship that ended about 8 months ago (dodged a bullet) and since that point I have been single. I go on these Catholic dating websites and I either find guys that are "cafeteria Catholics" or guys that are have just left the seminary or are currently committed to discerning the priesthood.

I'm active in the young adult groups at my parish, but it seems that all the girls are shopping...

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force anything that isn't there and I am open to God's will, it's just so frustrating!!!

/sigh
[/quote]

[quote name='FaithAndReason21' timestamp='1323399637' post='2347705']
Well Miss Pennylane, I'm sorry you consider me a bullet to be dodged! I'm sure there is some fine lady out there who would appreciate me for who I am and for the love I try to give. One thing you can't accuse me of is lack of commitment, because as you know you needn't be single; that's your choice. Happy Feast Day, by the way!

Still praying for reconcilliation...


P.S. I used to be more active on phatmass and know some of ya out there, my old screenname was a guest account,[/quote]

Edited December 9, 2011 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1323411634' post='2347826']
It's tricky, cause you don't want to come off as desperate/clingy, either.
[/quote]

At the same time, people should not be demonized for being honest about the fact that they are seeking a spouse. In fact, at the NCSC, it was discussed that when you ask a girl out, specify that it is a date so your intentions are established upfront (of course, the audience was post-college age adults).

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1323058534' post='2344728']

However you translate it, the point is that Ms. Francois is in error for the reasons I have stated above. With the exception of those who have been called to celibacy, we were not built to be alone, but rather to be married - yes, in communion not just with God, but with a spouse. People should not be made to feel ashamed for seeking marriage.




And what is so offensive about traditional gender roles?
[/quote]

nothing at all. It's the chauvinism behind it that is offensive.


[quote name='FaithAndReason21' timestamp='1323399637' post='2347705']



P.S. I used to be more active on phatmass and know some of ya out there, my old screenname was a guest account, FockeWulf!
[/quote]
I remember you!

WB

[Basilisa Marie]

How are people shamed for seeking marriage? If anything, single people are shamed because there is so much societal pressure to "be with" someone else.

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1323058534' post='2344728']
But it is historically accurate. When did this whole "culture of singleness" explode? The late 1960s through the 1970s (just check the studies that show how the average age at which people get married has increased since 1960), which coincided with two important events/trends:

1) The rise of contraception (due partly to the advent of the birth control pill, and also due partly to the Griswold v. Connecticut case in the US Supreme Court which struck down laws banning contraceptives)
2) The women's (aka "feminist") movement, which included anti-male/anti-family agenda points, putting career ahead of family (and if they wanted to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex without the procreative, well, how convenient it was that all these contraceptives came along, eh?)

And what is so offensive about traditional gender roles?
[/quote]

I find the way you phrased it offensive. Specifically, I mean:
[quote]could have been a commercial for extra strength Midol)[/quote]
^Implies that women are completely ruled by hormones, and thus their opinions or behavior should be completely written off because of it.
[quote] the lesbian/feminazi/career woman agenda[/quote]
^ Implies that all career women are lesbians, all women with careers hate men, that all feminists are lesbians. That either having a career, having homosexual inclinations, or supporting women's rights somehow makes you less of a person.
[quote]"you don't need a spouse/children to be fulfilled" line, as well as others that are anti-biblical[/quote]
^You don't need a spouse or children to be fulfilled. You can be a religious. There are plenty of consecrated virgin women that are saints. That's where the "single vocation" movement is getting its foundations - in the many holy women saints that were not part of a religious order or married but still dedicated their lives wholly to God. Implying that having a career is anti-biblical ignores Lydia, the woman who was a purple cloth merchant, and was a faithful follower of Christ. The fact that Mary Magdalene is defined by her town means that she was likely independent, unmarried, and had enough money to be self-sufficient before she began to follow Christ (the idea that she was a prostitute was invented by Pope Gregory the Great, so it isn't exactly biblical).
[quote] It goes to kill the male drive to pursue, or many males have to seek wives outside the Church or wiith unfaithful Catholic women, with risky/disastrous results in that they may fall away from the Church.[/quote]
This is probably the most offensive part of your post. You have absolutely no right to blame women for a man's behavior, or his decision to date non-Catholics, to assume that all relationships between a non-Catholic and Catholic are doomed to end disastrously or that men engage in risky behaviors solely because there aren't enough "good" Catholic women.

Now, there is absolutely nothing offensive about traditional gender roles in themselves. But you can't universally apply them in the same way to all relationships. If it works for the family for the husband to pursue his career while the wife stays home with the kids, that's great! But there's just as much goodness if a family decides it would be better if the wife pursued her career while her husband stayed home with the kids.

Furthermore, you can't discount the women's movement completely. It's because of the women's movement that I can vote, that I can own property, that I can get a job or even get a job that doesn't only involve secretarial work, that I can be paid the same wage as a man for the same job, that I can go to college, that I can get a theology degree and that I can teach others about the truths of the Catholic faith. You can't write off the whole women's movement just because of the bad things its brought as well. Or would you much rather that the Church agreed with the Early Fathers and still proclaimed that women were subhuman, malformed men?

I'm not offended by what you're saying - sure, I'll even agree that the women's movement has contributed plenty to the things that are wrong with society today. I'm offended by the way you're saying it, because it makes it seem like you ultimately don't have respect for the autonomy of women and that you ultimately blame them for the sins of men.

PS: FaithandReason21 - Passive Aggressive much?

Edited December 9, 2011 by Basilisa Marie

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1323461971' post='2348217']
How are people shamed for seeking marriage? If anything, single people are shamed because there is so much societal pressure to "be with" someone else.



I find the way you phrased it offensive. Specifically, I mean:

^Implies that women are completely ruled by hormones, and thus their opinions or behavior should be completely written off because of it.

^ Implies that all career women are lesbians, all women with careers hate men, that all feminists are lesbians. That either having a career, having homosexual inclinations, or supporting women's rights somehow makes you less of a person.

^You don't need a spouse or children to be fulfilled. You can be a religious. There are plenty of consecrated virgin women that are saints. That's where the "single vocation" movement is getting its foundations - in the many holy women saints that were not part of a religious order or married but still dedicated their lives wholly to God. Implying that having a career is anti-biblical ignores Lydia, the woman who was a purple cloth merchant, and was a faithful follower of Christ. The fact that Mary Magdalene is defined by her town means that she was likely independent, unmarried, and had enough money to be self-sufficient before she began to follow Christ (the idea that she was a prostitute was invented by Pope Gregory the Great, so it isn't exactly biblical).

This is probably the most offensive part of your post. You have absolutely no right to blame women for a man's behavior, or his decision to date non-Catholics, to assume that all relationships between a non-Catholic and Catholic are doomed to end disastrously or that men engage in risky behaviors solely because there aren't enough "good" Catholic women.

Now, there is absolutely nothing offensive about traditional gender roles in themselves. But you can't universally apply them in the same way to all relationships. If it works for the family for the husband to pursue his career while the wife stays home with the kids, that's great! But there's just as much goodness if a family decides it would be better if the wife pursued her career while her husband stayed home with the kids.

Furthermore, you can't discount the women's movement completely. It's because of the women's movement that I can vote, that I can own property, that I can get a job or even get a job that doesn't only involve secretarial work, that I can be paid the same wage as a man for the same job, that I can go to college, that I can get a theology degree and that I can teach others about the truths of the Catholic faith. You can't write off the whole women's movement just because of the bad things its brought as well. Or would you much rather that the Church agreed with the Early Fathers and still proclaimed that women were subhuman, malformed men?

I'm not offended by what you're saying - sure, I'll even agree that the women's movement has contributed plenty to the things that are wrong with society today. I'm offended by the way you're saying it, because it makes it seem like you ultimately don't have respect for the autonomy of women and that you ultimately blame them for the sins of men.

PS: FaithandReason21 - Passive Aggressive much?
[/quote]










Wow.


yay.


that is everything I was thinking and said sooooo much 1) more eloquently 2) politely. yay!

[MissyP89]

Beautiful, Basilisa. Thanks for always stepping up with so much charity.

[Lil Red]

[quote](the idea that she was a prostitute was invented by Pope Gregory the Great, so it isn't exactly biblical). [/quote]
great post, except for this. we just don't know, and you and i could probably trade links of who is right/wrong, but even people smarter than i, don't know.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1323467635' post='2348245']
great post, except for this. we just don't know, and you and i could probably trade links of who is right/wrong, but even people smarter than i, don't know.
[/quote]

Haha, you're very right, we don't know. What I probably should have said was that Pope Gregory's homily on Luke was the first written record that we have suggesting that Mary was a prostitute. I think I read somewhere that part of it was that he was trying to clear up some of the confusion involving the multitude of Marys and unnamed women in the Gospels. Regardless, he was a brilliant scriptural exegetic, and yeah, we ultimately don't know either way whether or not she was actually a prostitute.