Ordering Deception

A short post today.

In my most recent Musings post I made the assertion that women were more prone to being deceived than men. A brief debate ensued, and after some study and careful thought I came to reconsider my original position. Here is what I expressed later:

I think that what might account for susceptibility to deception might in fact be primarily a result of deception from the other sex. I suspect that it might be that women are susceptible to men deceiving them. And the reverse definitely seems to be true based on many accounts from these parts.

In other words, women seem prone to deception, at least to men, because women are more susceptible to being deceived by men. And the reverse is also true- that men are prone to being deceived by women. A possible implication of this is that men are less susceptible to being deceived by other men, and women are less susceptible to being deceived by other women.

I think that the principal reason this might be the case is that men tend to be less knowledgeable about women. They don’t know how they think, or what they think, or what they value, or why, to the degree that they do with men. And of course vice-verse. There are plenty of anecdotal stories from the manosphere which would back up that men can be deceived, easily even, by women. While the reverse has tended to be a predominate view, or at least was for a long time, that might be because most of the authors of such advice were men. Women might have, and probably did, have other ideas about how easy men were to deceive.

Seeing as I love to categorize, I see four different scenarios when individual deception is concerned (that is, individuals deceiving other individuals). They are:

  • A man deceiving a woman
  • A man deceiving another man
  • A woman deceiving a man
  • A woman deceiving another woman

What I wonder about is the order of susceptibility. By that I mean, which scenario is the most potent? Or are they the same between the opposites? That is, are men just as good at deceiving women as women are at deceiving men? I would invite my readers to contribute their thoughts on these questions, and the order of the specific scenarios from easiest to hardest.

Advertisements

87 Comments

Filed under Alpha, Beta, Blue Pill, Civilization, Fitness Test, Men, Red Pill, Sin, Women

87 responses to “Ordering Deception

  1. “We have some virulently anti-Catholic people involved here. ** What you have going on right here is a full-scale, all-out war on the Catholic Church.”

    BS. Wrong. Cane noted as a factual matter the introduction of feminism and socialism in Western Europe where Catholicism had once prevailed. If you disagree with him, bring facts to bear instead of claiming religious bigotry.

    As an aside, I don’t even listen anymore to claims of “Racism!” “Sexism!” “Misogyny!” “Anti-Semitism!” “Anti-Christian!” because they are so common and so melodramatic and so over-the-top as to be completely meaningless now. Anytime someone brings up a fact or set of facts, or criticizes someone or some other group, the aggrieved always trots out the finger-pointing and the “bigot” canard in an attempt to shut down the discussion.

  2. @MitS

    Here we are. It’s coming out. We have some virulently anti-Catholic people involved here. All my questions are answered, all puzzlement solved. Makes total sense now.

    Boy, you are a wicked woman! Every way you can find you are divisive and cruel and manipulative. I’m not anti-Catholic. I’m so far from anti-Catholic that many have long thought I was RC, and I have much respect for them. Do I not refer people here? Do I not refer them to other RC writers?

    The problem isn’t that you and mdavid and others are Roman Catholic; its that you’re not, but you are let to believe you are. There is nothing catholic about hating husbands and withholding respect for office.

  3. PokeSalad

    “Well, we’re hated by the left and we’re hated by the right! We must be doing something right, then! 🙂 Rejoice”

    Amazing…that’s exactly what Caleb from Ukraine said, and its pure rhetorical garbage used to purely to rationalize. Since when has this been a standard of Biblical truth? Where did Jesus say, “Well, since both the Pharisees and the Sadducees both hate me, I MUST be right?” Don’t confuse cause and effect.

    The heresy runs deep.

  4. We are all wicked, which is why we are celebrating the mystery of the Redemption this weekend.

    If I had been in error in regards to anyone’s particular stand on Catholicism, please accept my apology for my error. However, your recent conversation did much to cast doubts.

    We have here an example of the reaction to feminism. I would probably call it “masculinism”. Both are evils, because both are committed to tearing the other down.

    That is all there is to it, and I know you will continue to call me evil, wicked, etc., I am sure you will come up with many other names to call me. That is fine. I do not choose to call you similar names because that is not befitting a person who is created in the image and likeness of God.

    The Traditionalist priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite under the diocesan ordinary are disliked by the “new” Catholics, and they are disliked by the ultra-right Catholics who advocate the sedevacantist position, because they are adhering to the ancient liturgy within the structure of the Church hierarchy.

    This is in many ways a similar situation. You must have people either on one extreme or the other. You would put Mrs. C, myself and my good friend from the website reclaimingthewomb.com in the category of militant feminists because we disagree with you, and in many cases disagree strongly with you, on certain issues. You have disregarded all the other things and have thrown vocabulary — wicked, woman (used in certain ways), feminist — that is not fitting. One wins nobody to their side with invectives. However, growing up in the environment in which I did, I am accustomed to this going on. I do not choose to lower myself to that level, although I see clearly your aim is to try to get me to do so.

    As for the other lady who told me that I am preventing her from being heard — not at all. Would you choose for me to abandon my conscience for the convenience of a few, or to be sure someone likes me? St. Thomas More did not do that, nor did St. John Fisher, and they both lost their heads as a result, but now they are saints in heaven. Therein lies my hope.

    A blessed Holy Thursday to you all.

  5. @ MITS

    That is all there is to it, and I know you will continue to call me evil, wicked, etc., I am sure you will come up with many other names to call me. That is fine. I do not choose to call you similar names because that is not befitting a person who is created in the image and likeness of God.

    Really? The criticism is about your behavior which is what the Scriptures tell other Christians to do for each other.

    If you’re going to bring up a situation that supports your points you should be willing to defend it when criticized. The last few posts have been pure rhetoric without discussing anything substantial with the intent of “woe is me.” That may work elsewhere and in real life as women and other men may come to your defense, but the men here including myself don’t stand for that. Feelings are not important so much as the truth.

    Case in point: If the truth is not evil then what do you have to fear from discussing aspects of it?

    The only time people hide the truth is when it reflects poorly upon them or is evil.

  6. MitS,

    As for the other lady who told me that I am preventing her from being heard — not at all. Would you choose for me to abandon my conscience for the convenience of a few, or to be sure someone likes me? St. Thomas More did not do that, nor did St. John Fisher, and they both lost their heads as a result, but now they are saints in heaven. Therein lies my hope.

    Admonishing men to check their vocabulary for your convenience while visiting their site, tailored for other men, all while being welcomed here by their good graces is disrespect and that is what is threatening, not your conscience. You do so here: Your choice of vocabulary shows me clearly that you are more concerned with somebody, particularly a woman, questioning you, then again here: Your vocabulary choices also clearly indicate that you are unable to tolerate any check and balance system. Don’t forget here: I made the unfortunate assumption that the men involved were gentlemen, you see. This is where I made my mistake. We are not to teach/admonish men at all (I Timothy 2:12), MitS, even if you were right, which you still are not.

  7. Also, Prots “vs.” Catholic is only an illusionary diversion meant to obscure the truth.

    Note it was brought up by none other than TPC who likes to manipulate conversations like this to some warped version of “traditionalism” that isn’t Christian. Wherever she goes strife and division follows.

    Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and [h]hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own [i]appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

    Titus 3:10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

  8. I have terminated friendships and relationships due to the other person’s choice of vocabulary. I grew up in a family where inappropriate vocabulary was used to intimidate others, and I am intolerant of it. I do not choose to accept that type of speech and I will speak against it with dignity when it is used.
    I observe that the men use whatever names, speech, that they wish in order to intimidate. They have a standard for women in which the women may not state that they will not accept such speech directed at them. This type of vocabulary is used in order to reduce the person to who it is aimed to a subhuman level; I once called someone on the word “bitch” because that word denotes a female dog; calling a human being a dog is akin to saying that the person is not a human being created in the image and likeness of God with an immortal soul. By using a word that does not indicate that the person possesses an immortal soul, the speaker is denoting that he believes the person to not be of infinite worth. In the present anti-life culture, this is a dangerous thought trend, which should alert the person to whom the language is being directed that their life could be in danger. I know you will scoff at this, but this is a hard truth.
    Trust nobody who cannot use correct vocabulary befitting a person created in the image and likeness of God.
    This conversation is over because it is fruitless. I suppose you will all continue to discuss it, but I have made my points. My conscience is at peace, I wish you all the best and you have nothing but my good wishes from here on out.

  9. Oh, and the argument “It’s your behavior I am punishing, not you” was the argument used many a time when a person in our home dared to try a step on their own. I’m not accepting that because I don’t believe you one bit.
    FINIS.

  10. theshadowedknight

    This masculinism reminds me of the differences in feminist theory, namely sex and gender. Sexual traits are innate and based in biological sex, gendered traits are malleable and are based on social roles. What ends up happening is that anything feminists like is a sexual trait, and whatever they dislike is a gendered trait, and thus subject to change.

    Anything traditional feminists like is traditional and Christian, even though that is often not the case, and whatever they want changed is masculinism and disrespecting of our human dignity.

    Same tune, different lyrics. Remember how I said we are smarter than you? I meant it. You are not talking to a bunch of cowed men from some heretical sect. You are talking to men who have spent years tearing holes in your arguments, because your points are the same points made by every other tradcon feminist, ever.

    The greatest sorrow of the noble knight is that he never has an opponent worthy of himself. Evil is base, craven, and weak, and he must forever battle against those broken wretches.

    The Shadowed Knight.

  11. TSK said:

    “No, I am not a gentleman, I am a knight. Being gentle never won me a battle, nor the heart of a fair maiden, so I am a rough man, instead.”

    Our society would do well to consider carefully what would cause young men like TSK to adopt such a worldview. In particular, our society should consider carefully what it has done to such young men to propagate such a worldview in them.

  12. mdavid

    CC, While I have you on the line: Your shot at Protestantism is so wide of the mark as to be 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

    Huh? I don’t care what religion you are. I’m merely amused at anyone who claims they can be the sole interpeter of their bible and then thinks they can have a culture with obedient women. This is not a shot at protestants – many trad protestants don’t behave this way. But they are not bible alone types.

    For example, the Amish are protestant and highly obedient to religious authority. So are trad Muslims. And trad Jews. And trad Catholics. And any traditional religion. Only in recent times are there “bible alone” people who think they can act alone. That’s great, just don’t be so shocked when women do the same thing. No outside authority, no head of household, no head of anything.

    Everywhere in the world where one finds a large and active practice of Roman Catholic liturgy, one finds the leading edge of institutionalized feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, etc. in fact these things came last to Britain, and last to America. The French Revolution was in France; hardcore, one-time Papal home, Roman Catholic France.

    Sigh Read your own writing for somebody off topic! The French Revolution killed priests, nuns, and religious by the thousands…yet the Catholic liturgy caused this? OK, whatever. If you have something intelligent to say that can be replied to in a combox, do so. Otherwise, forget it.

    Within the US, the edge of the rot is on the coasts; where Roman Catholics are in numbers. Those hillbillies in the Midwest–among whom actually conservative Roman Catholics find safe harbor–are Protestant in culture; except that they are being eroded by nonsense brewed in the Roman Catholic cultures of the Northeast, and invaded by the Roman Catholic cultures south of the US border.

    Sheese. See above. I’ve made no claim about Catholics. You have. I’ve addressed trads, which, last I checked, don’t own the US coast. Leave me out of your religious angst. I have none.

    Who taught you to be so miserly with respect? Who taught this to the men in MitS family? Why is it found wherever one finds self-described adherents of “traditional Roman Catholicism”?

    Are you for real? Exactly who in this convo is being “miserly with respect” besides yourself? Quote me where I am doing so, and I’ll address it. I’ve quoted you right above where you are (at the least) being “miserly with respect”. I’ve made a simple and factual point, individualism such as “bible alone” religion leads to individualistic religions whch get feminism with the package. I know nothing about Shoe. And unlike you, I don’t claim to. Leave me out of your personal squabbles.

  13. Mrs. C

    “We are not to teach/admonish men at all (I Timothy 2:12), MitS….”

    I’m too busy getting ready for Easter to take part in discussions but this is kind of a pet peeve of mine so I will jump in quickly this one time. I don’t know from which religious tradition Psalm1Wife hails from but as far as Catholics go, we admonish each other as brothers and sisters if the need arises. 1 Timothy 2:12 has historically been understood as a verse supporting an all-male priesthood, not a subjection of women to men in general. Using this verse to admonish a Catholic woman will not work. Only the Magisterium and husbands under the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage have a headship position. Even this doesn’t exclude them from fraternal admonishment if needed as it’s not an absolute power and it matters not whether it’s a brother or sister. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself and when it seems to we have to realize that something in the interpretation must be off. Catholics rely on the Church to interpret Scripture and it’s never restricted women from teaching or admonishing men if they are truly in the wrong. Of course, male or female, this is always to be done in all Christian charity and respect.

    Verses such as Colossians 3:16 and Romans 15:14 among many others are aimed at all Christians and makes no distinctions of males to males and females to females.

    “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. ”

    “I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another.”

    Catholics call “instructing the ignorant’ and “admonishing the sinner” spiritual works of mercy and all are called to practice them.

    Have a Blessed Easter everyone!

  14. MitS said:

    calling a human being a dog is akin to saying that the person is not a human being created in the image and likeness of God with an immortal soul. By using a word that does not indicate that the person possesses an immortal soul, the speaker is denoting that he believes the person to not be of infinite worth. In the present anti-life culture, this is a dangerous thought trend, which should alert the person to whom the language is being directed that their life could be in danger. I know you will scoff at this, but this is a hard truth.

    One would think she would at least avoid an example of something which Christ Himself did, and with which the Bible is absolutely littered.

    Wheels are way off that train. That’s my point.

    @mdavid

    Huh? I don’t care what religion you are. I’m merely amused at anyone who claims they can be the sole interpeter of their bible and then thinks they can have a culture with obedient women. This is not a shot at protestants – many trad protestants don’t behave this way. But they are not bible alone types.

    I do not believe you. You said:

    PC, no man is an island of sole authority over his wife and kids. He is always supposed to be ready to submit to proper, higher authorities.

    Yes, this. I am amused at men demanding submisson of women to them while acting as an island themselves. This thread is a classic in this regard. Bible Alone = Individual Interpretation = Individualism = Feminism. When you buy it. own it. QED.

    By “this thread”, you did not mean “the men commenting in this thread”? And by “classic in this regard”, you did not mean “the men commenting in this thread are responsible for feminism because they are “Bible Alone”? By “Bible Alone”, you do not mean “Sola Scriptura”, and by which you are not talking about adherents of Sola Scriptura; who we can (must) say are Protestants; as per the Council of Trent?

    The Amish, Mennonites, and so forth are Anabaptists; who, if they practice fidelity to Scripture at all, practice Sola Scriptura. Regardless, there are none in this thread; nor Muslims; nor Jews. You were talking about Protestants in this thread, and instead of telling them to submit themselves to their church’s leadership: You scoffed at them (“I am always amused at…”), and blamed them for Feminism. If you have found the right way, then tell them the right way.

    The French Revolution killed priests, nuns, and religious by the thousands…yet the Catholic liturgy caused this? OK, whatever. If you have something intelligent to say that can be replied to in a combox, do so. Otherwise, forget it.

    Culture matters. Though French Revolutionaries had stopped attending Catholic liturgies; the culture was already there, grown through the power of the state and the RCC (the state religion). It was a Roman Catholic culture; including it’s discontents and revolutionaries. And, yes, from there flowed a bunch of dead Catholics.

    Now, take a look at this situation with MitS cousins (as it has been portrayed[1]). I see a presence of Catholic liturgy (extraordinary form, etc.). I see the ruler out of touch with the poverty among the people. I see the people greedy for the violence against the ruler. I see the ruler pushing away the people by lashing out; instead of rushing in and making the raising up–the elevation–of the people his business in an intimate way. It looks like every South American country, ever.

    Am I saying Catholic liturgy is bad? No, but Catholics need to figure out why there is a correlation between Roman Catholics, and the rise of class warfare. Until that time happens: Perhaps you should not laugh at Protestant men who are trying to be your ally, if not your friend.

    [1] Recognizing that it still has not been said that the husband hit, kicked, bit, tied-up, tied-down, pushed off the monkey bars, dropped off the other end of a see-saw or otherwise physically abused the wife in any way.

  15. theshadowedknight

    Deti, I have imbibed considerably more damaging habits than simply being blunt and dismissive. America could use more men willing so speak up when they see or hear absurdities.

    Not being willing to marry, distrust of authority, not being willing to defend the nation, withdrawing from society, and more. Compared to that, the occasional rudeness is a small matter.

    The Shadowed Knight

  16. Mrs. C,

    “I’m too busy getting ready for Easter to take part in discussions “

    Assuming that you do read this and even if you choose not to answer, I will still respond. 🙂

    I don’t know from which religious tradition Psalm1Wife hails from “

    My husband was raised Baptist, I was raised non-denominational, but Protestant nonetheless.

    Using this verse to admonish a Catholic woman will not work. “

    Thank you for the insight! I very much appreciate it and I will remember this in future discussions on Catholic dominant blogs or forums.

    In response to everything else… I have grown accustomed to deferring any remotely questionable argument to my husband in order to remember how we think on such issues and he has firmly reminded me that a woman mustn’t admonish/teach a man and that it would solely be up to a fellow brother to correct doctrinal errors. I greatly respect your differing opinion and also wish you a blessed Easter holiday.

    In Christ, Psalm1Wife

  17. Mrs. C

    @Psalm1Wife “I greatly respect your differing opinion….”

    And I yours. I think most of these topics easily devolve into misunderstandings when those of varying Christian denominations are interpreting Scripture differently and not aware of where the other is coming from. Heck, sometimes those within the same denominations can’t even agree. 🙂

  18. mdavid

    CC, The Amish, Mennonites, and so forth are Anabaptists; who, if they practice fidelity to Scripture at all, practice Sola Scriptura.

    Not individual interpretation for their communities. You get kicked out for that. Spin “bible alone” however you wish, but 99% of modern Christians view it where they get to interpet the bible for themselves and church hop as needed. Not so among the Amish. And now that most non-trad-protestant women view it that way too, I say God has a sense of humor! When you buy something, own it.

    Perhaps you should not laugh at Protestant men who are trying to be your ally, if not your friend.

    I always laugh at shameless hypocrisy. I’m curious; exactly why should I seek “friends” on this issue? I don’t have feminism problems in my family, extended family, or community (think headcoverings). I certainly don’t expect political change (this would violate most’s desire for personal religious freedom, natch). I don’t rely upon nor expect the State to protect my marriage (shudder) nor to stop people from using contraception or aborting. I fully accept that Christiandom as a political force has been diminishing since Henry VIII demanded a divorce and got it, and I accept that things will probably get far worse before they get better (a new Dark Age, probably). Ideas have real consequences. Protestants should accept and own this; with 30,000 denominations and counting, we should expect some individualism among Christians on God, feminism, and family, methinks. Trads will yawn and keep on keeping on, just like 50, 500, 1500 years ago, with unchanging views on God and family.

  19. Feminine But Not Feminist

    It seems to me that the original post has gotten lost somewhere beneath all of this totally off-topic feuding…

  20. Svar

    On traditional patriarchy and interference within marriage: https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-iii-violence/

    In most traditional eras, if you were to get caught beating your wife, her brother or father would have killed you.

    In traditional society, there is interference within marriage when there needs to be. As for MitS, the cousin is her husband’s flesh and blood. He has every right to intervene.

    Acting like a tyrant towards a woman doesn’t make you a big man nor a knight. Only a LARPing wannabe would call himself a knight in this day and age.

  21. theshadowedknight

    I do not hit women to feel like a big man; I am already a big man. I hit women to keep them in line. Interesting article, though.

    If knight does not meet with your approval, I am keeping the username, either way. If it makes you feel better, try reading it as ruffian or savage.

    The Shadowed Ruffian? Nah, it does not have the same ring to it.

    The Shadowed Knight

  22. Thank you, Mrs. C. I had forgotten all about the works of mercy when in the midst of this. I hope you are having a blessed Triduum.

    A thought for all who have been involved in this conversation — these are the works of mercy, listed here in the order in which they are taught to Catholic children (and adults for that matter).

    The Spiritual Works of Mercy
    1. Admonish the sinner.
    2. Instruct the ignorant.
    3. Counsel the doubtful.
    4. Comfort the sorrowful.
    5. Bear wrongs patiently.
    6. Forgive all injuries.
    7. Pray for the living and the dead.

    The Corporal Works of Mercy
    1. Feed the hungry.
    2. Give drink to the thirsty.
    3. Clothe the naked.
    4. Visit the imprisoned.
    5. Shelter the homeless.
    6. Visit the sick.
    7. Bury the dead.

    They apply to everyone, and we are obliged in Christian charity to follow them. Sometimes this means standing up for what is right, whether it is defending a doctrinal point or protecting someone who cannot protect themselves. And at the same time, extending fraternal charity towards those who harm us in forgiveness, but one is to also extend fraternal correction, as Mrs. C said, the prerogative listed in the Scripture is directed at who may hold a ministerial office, not as to whether or not we as women may charitably and respectfully correct our brothers in Christ when they err. In fact, to fail to speak up can be regarded as a sin of omission on our part…..so, if we see a man do wrong and decide not to call them on it, we could end up guilty of sin. All must follow these precepts, man or woman, it makes no difference.

    This is why the Catholic Church submits Herself to the Magisterium, that these disagreements do not happen. Yes, they still do happen, unfortunately, and that is due to much confusion in recent decades. The Church has weathered many storms throughout the ages, and will weather the current one, but the Magisterium remains.

  23. Svar

    “I do not hit women to feel like a big man; I am already a big man.”

    Cool story bruh.

    “I hit women to keep them in line.”

    Hahaha, you can’t keep them in line otherwise? You even married?

    “Interesting article, though.”

    It’s from Chronicles, a paleoconservative site. The Far-Right has been saying what the Manosphere has been for years before the Manosphere has. Minus the wannabe Alpha posturing.

    “If knight does not meet with your approval, I am keeping the username, either way. If it makes you feel better, try reading it as ruffian or savage.

    The Shadowed Ruffian? Nah, it does not have the same ring to it.

    The Shadowed Knight”

    Ruffian, savage, knight. Might as well call yourself a warlock or a mage or some other WoW base character. Still LARPish. The problem is that it’s such a D&D nerd delusion. You don’t need my approval, just keep on doing what you feel like, Big Man.

  24. mdavid

    C, 1 Timothy 2:12 has historically been understood as a verse supporting an all-male priesthood, not a subjection of women to men in general….the Church has…never restricted women from teaching or admonishing men if they are truly in the wrong.

    I would be careful speaking for “the Church” on this. Here’s why:

    1) I don’t believe the universal Church has ever ruled on the verse. It’s open.
    2) Quotes by Fathers seem contra to your view; a lot of different cultural interpretations regarding how women were viewed teaching. I remember some restricting women from even baptising.
    3) I don’t buy that restricting women from teaching or other such public things (no matter how “teaching” is defined) should ever be considered “subjection” of women like you imply.
    4) Regarding women teaching in general: that’s clearly up to her (male) bishop, and only the (male) bishop can define what she’s allowed to teach. Same for a priest or layman, they don’t teach the public on their own, only as a servant of the (male) bishop. So a women “teaching” is not instructing men with her own ideas, but restating the teaching of her (male) bishop.

    I think many non-traditinal Christians don’t get this part, the idea that nobody can teach contra to their bishop (most think they can authoritatively interpet the bible themselves, for goodness sakes). So clearly no teaching comes from a woman, since women are not allowed to be bishops.

    However, my view on this passage is different than yours (and probably has a better historical bishop match-up than your egalitarian view). I think Paul is clearly teaching (with the universal authority of an Apostle, not just a bishop) something about the nature of male and female relations, not just about the priesthood. I think cultures like ours (i.e. modern liberal bishops with declining churches and imploding families, natch) ignore this condemnation of women teaching men at their peril. Paul takes the Eve thing seriously, and recognizes there is a male/female difference regarding authority under natural law. And like all good teachings, we can see the fruits of ignoring it almost immediately; there is a strong inverse correlation of declining faith and family breakdown along with female teachers over men. I would bet on any culture that takes a conservative view of this passage will, in the end, kick the s*** out of cultures like ours, which are drifting towards androgyny. Muslims, for all their screwed-up views on things, are invading the West in droves in large part due to Christian men and women dismissing Paul’s views about gender and trying to twist Christian culture into something more in line with our modern sensiblities.

    Here’s the verse; I don’t see how anyone reading it with an open mind cannot see the clear vision of Paul on male/female relations (1 Tim 2:11+, NASB):
    A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

    Happy Easter all!

  25. Mrs. C

    @mdavid re: 1 Tim 2:12 “I don’t believe the universal Church has ever ruled on the verse. It’s open.”

    The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in INTER INSIGNIORES – Declaration on the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (15 October 1976) has stated

    “However, the Apostle’s forbidding of women “to speak” in the assemblies (cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2: 12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (cf. 1 Cor 11:5); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly.”

    The same document states ” This document, which rejected the idea that women could be priests, also stated that “the Scholastic doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often present arguments on this point (women’s ordination) that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting or would even rightly reject”

    Being that the Congregation’s role is “to promote and safeguard the doctrine of faith and morals in the whole Catholic world…,” I think it’s pretty clear where the Church stands on the issue in statement and practice.

    The Code of Canon Law describes the role of prophet (of which all the baptized share in the triple mission of Christ as priest, prophet and king) as the mission of teaching. (Understanding, of course, that for laity they teach (pass on) only what the Church teaches.)

    @mdavid 2) Quotes by Fathers seem contra to your view; a lot of different cultural interpretations regarding how women were viewed teaching. I remember some restricting women from even baptising.

    The Fathers said a lot of things that either never were taken up officially as doctrine or practice by the whole church. Having said that, there are a lot of writings that describe marriage as one in which husband and wife instruct each other or “mutually mold” one another, both in the Fathers and in current documents.

    St. John Chrysostom in telling wives to give good counsel to their husbands says “For nothing, nothing is more powerful than a pious and sensible woman to bring a man into proper order, and to mould his soul as she will.”

    Tertullian ” What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both (are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly “two in one flesh.” Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit too. Together they pray, together prostrate themselves, together perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining. ”

    St. Thomas Aquinas allowed women to sponsor men for confirmation on the grounds that in the order of grace it didn’t matter if it was a woman or man who sponsored a male candidate. One of the men confirmed last night at our Easter Vigil Mass was sponsored by a woman. This is in keeping with the current Code of Canon Law.

    Casti Connubii “This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony…”

    @mdavid 3) “I don’t buy that restricting women from teaching or other such public things (no matter how “teaching” is defined) should ever be considered “subjection” of women like you imply.”

    Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don’t take the Church’s stance against women as priests and teaching in an official capacity as a subjection of women. I’m pointing out that the Church in practice doesn’t bar women from ever teaching men in any capacity as some Protestant’s interpret the verse. It also wouldn’t say that a wife must never share what she knows about Church teaching with her husband if he is ignorant of it or that if he is in sin she is banned from pointing it out. I’m arguing against the understanding of submission as one that is absolute in that women are never to teach the faith in any capacity to men or that women are never to correct a brother in Christ who is in error. This idea of submission overrides the basic duties of all Christians to the spiritual works of mercy. Women aren’t exempt from these duties in their relation to men.

    @mdavid “4) Regarding women teaching in general: that’s clearly up to her (male) bishop, and only the (male) bishop can define what she’s allowed to teach. Same for a priest or layman, they don’t teach the public on their own, only as a servant of the (male) bishop. So a women “teaching” is not instructing men with her own ideas, but restating the teaching of her (male) bishop.”

    Well, of course. Men and women alike, who are teaching the faith, are bound to not exceed the faith with their own interpretations or understandings. Husbands and wives aren’t to interpret Scripture on their own and impose it on each other or their children. They have a responsibility to pass on the faith as taught by the Church. I never argued otherwise.

    @mdavid – “I think cultures like ours (i.e. modern liberal bishops with declining churches and imploding families, natch) ignore this condemnation of women teaching men at their peril.”

    If the woman is teaching only what the Bishop or the Magisterium allows or teaches, how is that dangerous? Anyone (male or female) teaching others their personal interpretations or opinions are at fault because they are taking on an authority that does not belong to them. This is a problem of wrongfully usurping authority, not a problem of whether the person is male or female. Either sex would be wrong to teach in this way.

  26. As an addendum to Mrs. C, I don’t know, of course, if any of you have been involved in the traditionalist movement in the Church long enough to encounter it personally, but many traditionalist leaning priests unfortunately went out on their own (what are known as the “independent” priests) and had no bishop to whom to answer, etc. This has caused no end of major problems, including priests getting themselves consecrated as bishops right and left. It seems there’s a bishop in every bush when it comes to certain traditionalist groups. Whole families have been split up with people refusing to speak to one another as a result of these splits.

    I believe the real problem here is that we are evading the issue, which, when it comes right down to the essence, is the usurping of all hierarchical authority as set up by Christ. Those who lack the submission to the regular authorities (ecclesiastical or civil) then begin to exert it in an excessive and oppressive manner, so as to make up for this lack. I hope this is coming through the way it is intended; meaning, when we throw off the authority of the Pope and the bishops, we then burden ourselves with more than we were ever meant to handle. Therefore, we end up with people who exercise unrestrained authority. You can observe this in some of the comments which have been offered. The great majority show clearly the complete lack of restraint that occurs when one throws off the lawful authority of the Magisterium. With the lack of submission to the authority structures in place, it’s very easy for the devil to convince one that he is his own authority and can interpret Scripture in any way he desires. It also came through in Cane’s post, as previously listed, when one of the men dared to suggest that perhaps the husband should apologize to the wife for anything he may have done against her and show that they are together on all this, not him punishing her. I noticed that it was either ignored or it was “insidious” to serve only to “dilute truth and buttress rebellion”. (see https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/cold-service-is-the-revenge-dish-of-vanity/#comment-18713) In other words, any act of a husband apologizing to his wife for the offenses he has committed against her is wrong — he is always right without question, and if he is wrong, should never admit it. This is the devil, encouraging him in his pride. A clear sign of a person greedy for power because he has convinced himself that he is the truth unto himself, with no answer to any properly ordained authority. Unfortunately, we find this in abundance among “sola Scriptura”, as each person makes himself the Pope in this case. With plenty of Protestant relatives, I believe I can make a good case for this from personal experience.

    One of the first changes made to the Bible by Protestants was the changing of the wording in the proclamation of God to the serpent in Genesis, which reads as follows in the Douay Rheims Bible: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel.” (Genesis 3: 15) This was the reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was preserved free from all stain of sin and was the most perfect of all human beings. It also places a huge responsibility upon us as women, because that’s our job — to crush the head of Satan. Why is it do you think he went after us first, with the fashions of the day and the immodest clothing? Because he can’t stand having his head crushed! So we go around in our “weird” clothing, as one blogger accused us of, because we must in order to crush the head of the serpent. And I could be going out on a limb here, but it was the fashions of the day that started the problem in the first place. The devil knew that if he just got us undressed enough, that was all that was necessary for society to go into chaos. If we had modesty back, I am firmly convinced that the twin heresies — those of feminism and masculinism — would disappear. It’s all about self-restraint and firm adherence to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

    These were also changed in the Protestant Bibles; these are, namely, thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Protestantism struck out the traditional ninth commandment, which specifically forbade impurity of thought. Martin Luther refused to honor his vow of chastity and then married a nun who also abandoned her vow of chastity. We know also that Henry VIII could not remain chaste either. All of this stems from one thing — impurity. Impurity is the scourge of the age and will be the cause of most people falling into Hell. It was said in one of the most famous apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Fatima, Portugal 1917): “More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” Take heed and think carefully when you even discuss such things amongst yourselves, because just talking about them sets the mind to undue thought over them. The devil lies in wait, seeking those whom he can devour; don’t be so naïve as to think that you can talk about sex and things related to it without putting your soul in grave danger.

    I’m a woman, so I suppose most of you will simply ignore this. But it has been said, and most of you needed to hear it desperately. Disrespectful? Not so. It is a lack of charity to not call a person’s attention to a dangerous situation. I would fail in charity if I didn’t say this. In addition, from the commentary, I have deduced I’m considerably older than most of the men who frequent here, and the contemporary of relatively few, so you may wish to keep that in mind when you decide to “put me in my place”. Would you speak that way to your mother? If you would, then it would be well to remember you are breaking the fourth commandment (honor thy father and thy mother), and that goes also for those who are in your parents’ age bracket.

  27. theshadowedknight

    Svar, children sometimes have to be punished, and men likewise. You do not try to keep criminals in line without force, and children need the rod when they do wrong. The only reason to exempt women from this is because you are trying to avoid disciplining women for their bad behavior. Traditional feminism is still feminism. Women are no better than men, and are often worse, you you would have no check on their behavior but mild disapproval, and we all see where that got. Trying to bring my masculinity into question because you disagree with me is one of the oldest tricks women have at their disposal. You have to give it a better shot than that.

    The Shadowed Knight

  28. TSK,
    Children do need the rod, definitely, but it should be applied rarely. And there are some children who should never be punished in that way. Some children simply dissolve into puddles of tears if you only look at them crosseyed. I was severely and unjustly punished corporally as a child by a relative who had no right to do so, and I remember it to this day. When it was possible for me to do so, I severed ties with that relative who spanked me, explained to him why I was doing so, and forbade him from ever touching my children. I do occasionally see him at family events, which we attend, but I have cautioned my younger children from having contact with him, and if they do, I supervise it carefully. The older ones I have informed of the actions, and have given them liberty to do as they choose, provided they have been duly warned. The relative is on notice that if he so much as lays a finger on one of the children, the police will be called promptly. He has honored that request up to this point, and I trust he will continue to do so. We have a sort of truce on that point, and he is used to seeing my sharp eyes on him when he is anywhere near any of my children.

    I recall many punishments inflicted by my elders, and most of these punishments were unjust, inflicted with wicked motives. I have brought it up to them on several occasions, mostly to let them know that they’d better not even think of touching my children, and to make it crystal clear that no relationship will be restored until an appropriate apology is issued which I will accept. They will probably never apologize appropriately, so I do not see the relationships being restored any time soon.

    For the record, both my husband and I do apply corporal punishment, but generally only when they are small and rapid action is necessary. Our older children we do not punish in this manner at all. My hope is that we can have a close relationship with our grown children and have bonds that will only grow stronger as the years go on.

    Corporal punishment to adult family members will serve no other purpose than to increase the pride of the person inflicting the punishment, destroy trust and end all relationships. If, as in the case of a child, the person cannot get away from the inflictor, the relationship will be permanently affected. If it is a husband using corporal punishment on his wife, she will undoubtedly do what he wants, to avoid further punishment, but her attitude towards him will be forever changed. She will, of course, have to continue to “agape” love him, as this is her absolute duty towards all fellow men, but all other forms of love will be absent, except for her sexual duties which she is obliged to render. But it will be rendered out of obligation, not because she wants to. Now, if this is your only goal — a subservient, obedient wife — you’re fine, unless she decides to break free and press domestic violence charges, which she would be well within her right to do. But if you want something more, you have just cut off your own nose to spite your face. You will end up growing old alone, even if she’s still with you, because she will not want to be near you and she will not like you. She will only be with you because she has to be, and she will only be serving you and meeting your needs because she has to.

  29. MitS

    It also came through in Cane’s post, as previously listed, when one of the men dared to suggest that perhaps the husband should apologize to the wife for anything he may have done against her and show that they are together on all this, not him punishing her. I noticed that it was either ignored or it was “insidious” to serve only to “dilute truth and buttress rebellion”

    All Christians should apologize for where they have done wrong. If the wife wants the situation to change she should start, especially since she’s the one asking for the advice. The husband in this case doesn’t seem willing to change as long as his wife is as she is (which to be honest sounds like in an awful place for both of them). She needs to take responsibility in her part and allow the Holy Spirit to work in her, and her husband will probably change (though not 100% for certain unfortunately).

    The most difficult thing to do is apologize where you are wrong and not blame the other person for any part in your mistakes. I’ve had to do this before and it’s quite painful. But this allows a connection to be reestablished as any form of blame will push the other person away.

    Prots vs Catholics is another sidestep of the issue.

  30. DS:
    “She needs to take responsibility in her part and allow the Holy Spirit to work in her, and her husband will probably change (though not 100% for certain unfortunately).”

    I wish this were true — unfortunately, I have yet to see this in any situation I have ever personally experienced. I have, however, seen many women who have read Debi Pearl, Helen Andelin and their contemporaries faithfully, organized groups to hold one another accountable for implementing the teachings found in these books, and have had their husbands eat it up. They praise their wives in public very nicely, and then in private (which we learn when we meet for the accountability meeting) things either stay the same or get worse….rationale is “hmm, she’s being all sweet and quiet, now we’re getting somewhere, so I’ll now order her to start teaching Latin and Greek to all the kids”. Finally we privately organized a class amongst ourselves for the kids — since I’m able to teach Latin — and we took care of it that way. However, I didn’t study Greek. I know the wife in question finally confronted him and informed him there wouldn’t be any Greek; at least she said she was going to one evening. She didn’t fill us in on the results of that conversation, so I have no idea if she prevailed or if he required her to do it anyway.

    I was going to organize a higher level Latin class for the upcoming year because a couple of Moms needed it, but my husband realized I was taking on too much and said no. He’s fine with the beginning and intermediate classes, though (Prima Latina and Latina Christiana from Memoria Press). I can fit those in. He doesn’t know why they were originally organized, though (that the mothers were being forced to do it when they couldn’t handle any more jobs). I just told him about what I wanted to do since I was obviously able to do it, and he thought it was a great idea. So this may force a few people to face reality as it really is instead of how they want it to be. I have to face the Moms tonight and tell them they’ll have to do it themselves. Granted, the Forms Latin series that we use from Memoria are pretty well scripted, but it can end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back if you are already about to strangle someone over learning fractions.

    So, at least in my experience, I’ve learned that you can only change yourself and you’d better not hope for or even remotely expect the husband to even try to meet you halfway, because 99% of the time he won’t. I am a little like Deti in this regard in the reverse….he complains that he can’t find women who are halfway decent; I can’t find men who are halfway decent.

  31. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ MitS

    So, at least in my experience, I’ve learned that you can only change yourself and you’d better not hope for or even remotely expect the husband to even try to meet you halfway, because 99% of the time he won’t. I am a little like Deti in this regard in the reverse….he complains that he can’t find women who are halfway decent; I can’t find men who are halfway decent.

    Maybe there’s a disproportionate amount of less-than-decent men in your circle, maybe there’s not; I don’t know. But there are men out there who are more than halfway decent. I know quite a few of them myself, and would say that many of the men that frequent this blog are as such.

    I’m reminded of a scene in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, when Lucy (and only Lucy) got a glimpse of Aslan. She excitedly tried to direct Peter, Susan, Edmund and Trumpkin’s attention to him, but he had vanished. She insisted he had been there, but they didn’t believe her. Peter asked her “why wouldn’t I have seen him?” to which she replied “maybe you weren’t looking.” They still didn’t believe her (except perhaps Edmund), but near the end we find out that Aslan really was there. The same goes for anyone who claims that just because they don’t encounter many (or any) decent men or women, that it means they don’t exist. Granted there aren’t many of either these days, but they do exist.

  32. Feminine But Not Feminist

    Actually to clarify…

    Even when we encounter decent people, we might not recognize them as such right away. Or we can mis-judge them because of our own preconceived notions and experiences, which clouds our ability to see who people really are unless we really look at them. MitS, are you calling your own husband less-than-decent? You said you can’t find any decent men… See what I’m getting at?

  33. theshadowedknight

    MitS, it is almost unbelievable how lacking in self consciousness you are. Every comment has had you turning around the conversation to yourself. The real value of women commenters is the demonstration of the principles that are discussed. In that sense, thank you.

    Of course, in another sense, no one wants to hear you go on and on about your life. This is not about you. This is something more. Stop hijacking the conversation so you can talk about what a hard life you had. No one cares.

    This is feminism, men. This is how it starts. A woman is mentally and emotionally damaged by a cruel upbringing and because her reality is the only one she recognizes, she imagines all men as brutes. So innocently does it begin, asking men to show more consideration for their wives and to make sacrifices. This is what they heard a hundred years ago. Does not sound too unreasonable, so it becomes accepted. Give it time, and it becomes tattooed, scarified harlots sacrificing infants to Baal and Moloch.

    American men do well in every single culture across the globe. American women strike out in China, where they have a deficit of tens of millions of women. Chinese men prefer African women to American women. Who do think has a decency problem, really?

    The Shadowed Knight

  34. FBNF,
    Fair enough, you have a point. I was not referring to my husband in that regard.

    TSK,
    We all have sins and imperfections. Your writing has demonstrated that you are not a person to take seriously, and I do not choose to do so.

  35. In addition, TSK, at this point whatever you may direct at me will be ignored by me until you can communicate with a little more civility than you do now. You have been unbelievably rude, not to mention demonstrating a suspicious undercurrent of violence which is more than a little troubling.
    Easter blessings to you.

  36. theshadowedknight

    MitS, you are a woman. The sex that was deceived in Eden. If Adam had not taken his wife seriously he may have gotten a replacement and the Fall could have been avoided. Not to mention that the Lord inspired Paul to command that women not be taken seriously. Add in your mental instability, and I am unconcerned with your opinion of me.

    As for any rudeness on my part, anyone who used to comment at Sunshine Mary’s old blog can vouch for me. I am being quite polite. You have not seen me get nasty, and not out of any reluctance or respect for you, but for Donal’s sake. Ask him, or Deti, or anyone else who remembers me.

    I have an undercurrent of violence, an overcurrent of violence, sidecurrents of violence, and even a middlecurrent of violence, as well. Is is not suspicious, it is quite obvious. Everyone else knows about that, too. No one has seen fit to ban me yet, though I have had a few comments moderated.

    The Shadowed Knight

  37. MitS

    I wish this were true — unfortunately, I have yet to see this in any situation I have ever personally experienced. I have, however, seen many women who have read Debi Pearl, Helen Andelin and their contemporaries faithfully, organized groups to hold one another accountable for implementing the teachings found in these books, and have had their husbands eat it up.

    There’s one of the problems right there. They should be reading the book that actually has power in it. Namely, the Scriptures.

    Hebrews 4:10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works,[e] just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

    I’m not particularly surprised the “book” culture has seeped into Catholicism too. Since more women read religious books than men, it also brings on the deception that women are “more spiritual” than men. Reading religious books apart from the Scriptures and doing what they say is the illusion of “religion” and being “spiritual.”

    So, at least in my experience, I’ve learned that you can only change yourself and you’d better not hope for or even remotely expect the husband to even try to meet you halfway, because 99% of the time he won’t. I am a little like Deti in this regard in the reverse….he complains that he can’t find women who are halfway decent; I can’t find men who are halfway decent.

    Nah, 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3 are pretty clear about it. It’s obviously not a power of God problem, so it must be a people problem.

    What is more likely the case is that wives try for a week or two and then they give up because they sense it’s not making a difference or her husband is still standoffish. They’re trying to perform rather than do it out of desire for God.

    The problem is that wives should be growing in the fruits of the Spirit because they want to submit to God… they must first throw off the bonds of their own “horrible” experiences realizing that it’s nothing compared to the cross. Grow some humility and apologize for their wrongs. Then obey their Biblical roles and responsibilities with patience, kindness, peace and joy. Same with a husband with a rebellious wife. Can’t do it without God working through you.

    Most Christians are always waiting for the other person to make the first move and ignore the Scriptures to their own detriment and lack of God working to change their lives. It’s sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s