Liberating Motherhood

[Gwendolyn]

Does the name Sarah ring a bell?

Being open to new life is what is the teaching.

Sarah had a uterus intact.

Being open to life doesn't mean that you have to do everything possible to get pregnant. It just means that you would accept children if they came along. And since you need a uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes to get pregnant, anyone who marries a woman who has had a partial or full hysterectomy would have to accept the fact that children are not in the cards. Hence my comment about pursuing other forms of authentic fulfilment, aside from parenthood.

 

[SolomonVII]

Monogamy is not natural to men. His natural interest is to spread the seed far and wide. Feminists in the West resented this kind of freedom and resented that their destiny was tied to their biology. The Pill and abortion were the panaceas that 'freed' them to become like men, to open their wings and fly to the same heights of pleasure as the male of the species, without consequence or concern.

And to the point that you don't see it, that is because you are drawing conclusion that do not follow from what was quoted.

Really, it is not rocket science to see what is being said here.

Freedom from marriage, freedom from responsibility of imposed motherhood. Men could always run from their sexual responsibilities, now so can women too.

 

[SolomonVII]

Sarah had a uterus intact.

She was what, 500 year old dear!
Slight exaggeration only. Even she could not believe it would be her.

It was a miracle by any stretch.
The Church teaches us to keep our sexuality open to life, that's all.
Other than that, barreneness is a crushing blow to anyone who is truly open to life.
For some couples, new life is something to die for—even something to allow one's husband to bop a cute little Egyptian hottie for apparently.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Somehow you have confused what I am saying with the notion of irresponsibility. I have no desire to live an irresponsible, selfish, juvenile life just because I am physically incapable of becoming pregnant, and I have no desire to marry a man who lives that way. Infertile or sterile couples do not always live wild lives. Some do; the mature ones don't. Do not generalise, and do not presume to know what is in one's heart based on the sole factor that they do not have children.

I am not devastated because I have accepted that I will not have children. If God regrew my uterus and fallopian tubes, and I miraculously got pregnant, obviously I would bear the child. But just because I am not waxing and waning and lamenting my sterility does not mean that I am somehow not open to life.

There are a lot of generalisations and misconceptions in this thread. Again, I remind you that the Church does not bar fertile/sterile couples from marrying, nor does it demand that if they marry, they must adopt - which indicates that the Church also sees value in the mutual love and affection shared between spouses, even if the physical bearing of children is not possible.

I have discussed this matter at length with my priest, and he has assured me that what I have expressed here is not contrary to the Church. Now, if I was singing the praises of irresponsible, promiscuous sex, abortion, contraception, and voluntary sterilisation, then we would have a problem. But I am not. The ideas I have expressed here are not linked to the "evil feminism" previously discussed. They are not linked to a desire to run rampant and live a licentious lifestyle. All I am talking about is that many women in my position accept this health issue, and the men who love them do the same.

Humans are not emotionally stunted or are prevented from striving for holiness just because they cannot have children. That is why I keep mentioning seeking out other avenues of achieving authentic happiness. God has a plan in store for all of us, including those who cannot have children - and, coincidentally, it often doesn't includle miraculous pregnancies.

 

[benedictaoo]

Waht kind of rabbit hole are you taking me down, Alice?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, or how in the world it adresses even in the slightest anything that I have said.

I am not talking about women either starving themselves or stuffing themselves until they bloat up to the size of whales.
What a ridiculous way to address what I am talking about.

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

Address that first, and then maybe we will see where we disagree.

You're a dude, right? This is one of those things you can't understand becuase you are not a women, a MOTHER.

So I do not know what authority in which you speak, other then theoretically and thats it.

You can think that a women should be able to meet all the demands of a family and she can... she really can but somewhere along the line, she looses herslef and that can take its tolll in many ways. I used the biggest loser just to try to illustrate the point becuase many women on there share their struggles. I would not be so quick to lay the blame at the feet of the feminist.

So I do agree with you in general but I just want you to recognize thats its hard and man should be aware of this and care about this, that a women who devotes herslef to her family loses herself along the way.

They're not going to put that down in the theology books but its the truth.
I just want you to know that.

and it was the men first who referenced the ball and chain and being married to one, not the feminist. Just sayin'

 

[SolomonVII]

Somehow you have confused what I am saying with the notion of irresponsibility. I have no desire to live an irresponsible, selfish, juvenile life just because I am physically incapable of becoming pregnant, and I have no desire to marry a man who lives that way. Infertile or sterile couples do not always live wild lives. Some do; the mature ones don't. Do not generalise, and do not presume to know what is in one's heart based on the sole factor that they do not have children.

Okay where exactly did I do that?
Where did I say that you were irresponsible, selfish, or whatever?
Where did I make any presumtions.
Where did I make it personal?

I am not devastated because I have accepted that I will not have children. If God regrew my uterus and fallopian tubes, and I miraculously got pregnant, obviously I would bear the child. But just because I am not waxing and waning and lamenting my sterility does not mean that I am somehow not open to life.

That is fine, dear.
I never even metioned your tubes.

There are a lot of generalisations and misconceptions in this thread

None of them are mine.

. Again, I remind you that the Church does not bar fertile/sterile couples from marrying, nor does it demand that if they marry, they must adopt - which indicates that the Church also sees value in the mutual love and affection shared between spouses, even if the physical bearing of children is not possible.

Where did I state otherwise?

I have discussed this matter at length with my priest, and he has assured me that what I have expressed here is not contrary to the Church. Now, if I was singing the praises of irresponsible, promiscuous sex, abortion, contraception, and voluntary sterilisation, then we would have a problem. But I am not. The ideas I have expressed here are not linked to the "evil feminism" previously discussed. They are not linked to a desire to run rampant and live a licentious lifestyle. All I am talking about is that many women in my position accept this health issue, and the men who love them do the same.

Then address it to other women, and don't infer that I was saying anything other than the plain meaning of my words.

Humans are not emotionally stunted or are prevented from striving for holiness just because they cannot have children. That is why I keep mentioning seeking out other avenues of achieving authentic happiness. God has a plan in store for all of us, including those who cannot have children - and, coincidentally, it often doesn't includle miraculous pregnancies.

If you would have addressed the main points of what I was saying, rather than pretending I was in anyway saying anythign against your condition, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

 

[SolomonVII]

You're a dude, right? This is one of those things you can't understand becuase you are not a women, a MOTHER

So I do not know what authority in which you speak, other then theoretically and thats it.

You can think that a women should be able to meet all the demands of a family and she can... she really can but somewhere along the line, she looses herslef and that can take its tolll in many ways. I used the biggest loser just to try to illustrate the point becuase many women on there share their struggles. I would not be so quick to lay the blame at the feet of the feminist.

So I do agree with you in general but I just want you to recognize thats its hard and man should be aware of this and care about this, that a women who devotes herslef to her family loses herself along the way.

They're not going to put that down in the theology books but its the truth.
I just want you to know that.

and it was the men first who referenced the ball and chain and being married to one, not the feminist. Just sayin'

The great pink estrogen wall of the jaja sisterhood just keeps rising higher and higher.

 

[benedictaoo]

The great pink estrogen wall of the jaja sisterhood just keeps rising higher and higher.

No, just the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about and can't and won't.

I don't know if you are married or what... have kids or what... just know that its may be all pie in the sky now but years of the "good wife and mother" can take its toll unless you encourage her to still make herslef a priority.

She WILL (Catholic or not) wake up one day and want to know where her life went.

 

[SolomonVII]

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

True or false?
Open to life, or closed to life?

 

[Rebekka]

True or false?
Open to life, or closed to life?

I see two different issues here?

 

[SolomonVII]

I see two different issues here?

and?....

 

[Rebekka]

and?....

Oh, nothing, it's just that I thought you presented them as intertwined.

 

[SolomonVII]

Oh, nothing, it's just that I thought you presented them as intertwined.

As opposed to what?
Test tube babies or something?

What did you have in mind?

 

[Gwendolyn]

And to the point that you don't see it, that is because you are drawing conclusion that do not follow from what was quoted.

Really, it is not rocket science to see what is being said here.

Freedom from marriage, freedom from responsibility of imposed motherhood. Men could always run from their sexual responsibilities, now so can women too.

This seemed to suggest that this is what women without children/without the ability to get pregnant might feel this way.

It was a miracle by any stretch.
The Church teaches us to keep our sexuality open to life, that's all.
Other than that, barreneness is a crushing blow to anyone who is truly open to life.
For some couples, new life is something to die for...

This seemed to suggest those like me, who do not feel it to be a crushing blow, are not "truly open to life".

The general attitude in this thread seems to equate women who are not/do not wish to become mothers = radical feminists who "need a man like a fish needs a bicycle". No, it has not been said outright, but through comments and such, there seems to be an underlying suspicion of women who are not/do not wish to become mothers. So I am saying that there is nothing wrong with them - they aren't radical feminists or inherently selfish women. They accept their lot dealt them in life, and move on. That is that.

I already addressed your bicycle comment. No one "needs" a husband or a wife. We don't "need" anyone but God. I don't "need" a man, but it would be helpful in my quest to learn about unconditional love if I experienced romantic love and selfless self-giving through marriage. It would also help me understand the interconnectedness of all Creation. But I don't "need" a male companion-turned-husband.

 

[SolomonVII]

"Freedom from marriage, freedom from responsibility of imposed motherhood.

This seemed to suggest that this is what women without children/without the ability to get pregnant might feel this way.

Okay, well first you were balking at my posts llong before that was posted,
second, this is what abortion and birth control does offer. This is exactly why the feminist movement has stressed these things as being integral to even the possibility of full equality.

You are by all appearances a well-educated and intelligent lady.
The is no reason why this should not be common knowledge to you as it is to me.
Like I say, this is not rocket science.

This is true. Birth control frees women to be more sexually active, like men without the dread the morning after that something is awry. It is fixable.
It frees tehm from getting tied down to that jerk in the bar who had their juices flowing, but now turns their stomach with his arrogance.
It frees them to pursue a career without the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy.
Gwendolyn, this is not inflammatory language. This is feminism. It is a legitimate viewpoint, even if diametrically opposed to Catholicism.
It is the teaching of the age. It is the revolution of our time. It has changed our world!
This is not some esoteric, unknown piece of information. This is our life as we know it today!

Opposed to that, is the OP—motherhood is freedom.
That is the radical teaching, that has engendered basically no support onn behalf of Catholic women, and a whole, whole lot of estrogen-fueled wrath.

This seemed to suggest those like me, who do not feel it to be a crushing blow, are not "truly open to life".

Okay, it has been explained as well as I can. There is nothing that could be done to prevent that, for the pain is the preexisting condition.

The general attitude in this thread seems to equate women who are not/do not wish to become mothers = radical feminists who "need a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

It is not the general attitude of this thread. There is no general attitude of this thread.
And this is not radical feminism. This is simply feminism. There was one point when the primary objective of a woman's life was to become married, become the matriarch of the family. For that a man is needed.

Feminism stated that a man is not necessary for a woman's fulfillment, as a general rule, and any show of hands would show that this is how young women truly do view the world.
There is no female voice here that has yet contradicted this in any way!!

No, it has not been said outright, but through comments and such, there seems to be an underlying suspicion of women who are not/do not wish to become mothers. So I am saying that there is nothing wrong with them - they aren't radical feminists or inherently selfish women. They accept their lot dealt them in life, and move on. That is that.

If it has not been, said, then it has not been said. Don't assume that what is said means anything other than the plain meaning of the words.
This is sheer paranoid thinking

Benedict00 said it perhaps best with her "Dude"!!
It is not what I am saying that is being objected to. that is irrelevant to this point. What is being objected to is the very idea that someone with a penis dares even say anything at all!!

Barrenness has always been with us. It is the exception, and it is simply grasping at strong to even assume that I was addressing your tragic situation.

Really, the only thing that I addressed was your assertion that women would like the same things in a relationship as Muslim men do. I merely opened up the possibility, and backed it with two short articles by Dennis Prager, that what men and women want out of a relationship was complementary, but not necessarily the same.
You ignored that, never once referred to that article but went down your own personal rabbit hole, assuming I somehow insulted your situation. All I did was offer up a slightly different take on things that I personally found interesting.
I mean the guy is a rabbi and a national famed figure for the past twenty five years. It is not like I was quoting Hitler or something.

I already addressed your bicycle comment. No one "needs" a husband or a wife. We don't "need" anyone but God. I don't "need" a man, but it would be helpful in my quest to learn about unconditional love if I experienced romantic love and selfless self-giving through marriage. It would also help me understand the interconnectedness of all Creation. But I don't "need" a male companion-turned-husband.

And I (and Meepy) already addressed that. Yes, one can certainly dedicate their lives to the service of God, that is what we really need, but in terms of our sexual fulfillment as men and women, which really ought to have been the obvious context of the statement, given the background information provided, in terms of our sexuality, women and men complete each other.

There is great sacrifice involved in giving it all up, either through barrenness, or righteousness on behalf of homosexual relationships, or through the priesthood.

It is a painful choice. You can understand that more than anybody.

Consider Abraham. God offered him the divine lottery, pretty much his whole known world—and Abraham winced and simply said, "but Yaweh, I aint got no kids!! Thanks, that is a very nice and lovely gesture, but it doesn't mean much to me if I don't even have anyone to pass it on to."

Ouch!!

 

[Gwendolyn]

I don't know why you keep equating feminism with women who do not have children. I never said that radical feminism hasn't lauded the dawn of abortion and contraception on demand. What I AM saying is that women who do not have children/cannot have children are not necessarily that sort of woman. They do not necessarily have that kind of mindset. Then you keep talking about feminism and fish and bicycles and I'm not sure why. Nothing I am talking about has anything to do with feminism. It has to do with women who cannot be bothers through accidents of nature, and if they choose to have careers and such without having to worry about supporting a family, why is that bad? Like I said, there is no mandate that everyone has to have children if they get married.

Anyway, I'm not paranoid, and I'm not sure why you're talking about Muslims and things that men want because those have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

My position is a valid one, it is acceptable within the realm of faith, and nothing I have said permits or approves of sin. The end.

 

[benedictaoo]

True or false?
Open to life, or closed to life?

A women needs to be open to life... ? Sure...

But a man needs to be open to her life too. The woman herself is also a life, she should be taken into consideration.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Yes, marriage as a form of slavery has been the message of feminism for over a generation now.

Feminism has freed the sisterhood from marriage and motherhood. That is why abortion is the primary and non-negotiable right that defines the preponderance of the movement. Biology is no longer destiny for womankind.

There is perfect clarity now. Carreer and individual self-expression and self-fulfillment can be a woman's primary identity, or wife and mother can be the primary way that she identifies herself.

Motherhood is too awesome and too difficult for any woman who places her own need for happiness and self-fulfillment over the relentless demands of family.
Motherhood is something that requires passion and committment that comes from the depths of one heart and soul. If it something that is considered as only optional, the committment required of it is obviously not going to be sufficient for the task at hand.

What a bunch of strawman baloney.

Feminism is about CHOICE. If a woman wants to be a stay at home wife and mother, thats just fine. If thats what she WANTS. If she WANTS to be a driven career woman who never marries, thats fine too, if thats what she WANTS. If she WANTS to get married and have kids, AND have a career, then hey, that too, is fine. What is wrong is when people other than the woman in question want to be able to make the choice for her, and feel entitled in doing so.

Telling a sentient human being what she may and may not do with her life, and what her suitable occupation is to be? Sounds like slavery to me.

Golden rule time... if some bozo told YOU that you were to find fulfillment in running a house and looking after kids, and were to have no further professional or educational advancement, and further, that you had no choice in the matter, would YOU be happy with that?

 

[benedictaoo]

Okay, well first you were balking at my posts llong before that was posted,
second, this is what abortion and birth control does offer. This is exactly why the feminist movement has stressed these things as being integral to even the possibility of full equality.

You are by all appearances a well-educated and intelligent lady.
The is no reason why this should not be common knowledge to you as it is to me.
Like I say, this is not rocket science.

This is true. Birth control frees women to be more sexually active, like men without the dread the morning after that something is awry. It is fixable.
It frees tehm from getting tied down to that jerk in the bar who had their juices flowing, but now turns their stomach with his arrogance.
It frees them to pursue a career without the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy.
Gwendolyn, this is not inflammatory language. This is feminism. It is a legitimate viewpoint, even if diametrically opposed to Catholicism.
It is the teaching of the age. It is the revolution of our time. It has changed our world!
This is not some esoteric, unknown piece of information. This is our life as we know it today!

Opposed to that, is the OP—motherhood is freedom.
That is the radical teaching, that has engendered basically no support onn behalf of Catholic women, and a whole, whole lot of estrogen-fueled wrath.





Okay, it has been explained as well as I can. There is nothing that could be done to prevent that, for the pain is the preexisting condition.


It is not the general attitude of this thread. There is no general attitude of this thread.
And this is not radical feminism. This is simply feminism. There was one point when the primary objective of a woman's life was to become married, become the matriarch of the family. For that a man is needed.

Feminism stated that a man is not necessary for a woman's fulfillment, as a general rule, and any show of hands would show that this is how young women truly do view the world.
There is no female voice here that has yet contradicted this in any way!!




If it has not been, said, then it has not been said. Don't assume that what is said means anything other than the plain meaning of the words.
This is sheer paranoid thinking

Benedict00 said it perhaps best with her "Dude"!!
It is not what I am saying that is being objected to. that is irrelevant to this point. What is being objected to is the very idea that someone with a penis dares even say anything at all!!

Barrenness has always been with us. It is the exception, and it is simply grasping at strong to even assume that I was addressing your tragic situation.

Really, the only thing that I addressed was your assertion that women would like the same things in a relationship as Muslim men do. I merely opened up the possibility, and backed it with two short articles by Dennis Prager, that what men and women want out of a relationship was complementary, but not necessarily the same.
You ignored that, never once referred to that article but went down your own personal rabbit hole, assuming I somehow insulted your situation. All I did was offer up a slightly different take on things that I personally found interesting.
I mean the guy is a rabbi and a national famed figure for the past twenty five years. It is not like I was quoting Hitler or something.


And I (and Meepy) already addressed that. Yes, one can certainly dedicate their lives to the service of God, that is what we really need, but in terms of our sexual fulfillment as men and women, which really ought to have been the obvious context of the statement, given the background information provided, in terms of our sexuality, women and men complete each other.

There is great sacrifice involved in giving it all up, either through barrenness, or righteousness on behalf of homosexual relationships, or through the priesthood.

It is a painful choice. You can understand that more than anybody.

Consider Abraham. God offered him the divine lottery, pretty much his whole known world—and Abraham winced and simply said, "but Yaweh, I aint got no kids!! Thanks, that is a very nice and lovely gesture, but it doesn't mean much to me if I don't even have anyone to pass it on to."

Ouch!!

You know whats funny here is in the other thread it was you who pointed out the differences of the sexes and argued that a women will never know what it is to be a man.

You will never, ever in a trillion years know what it is to be a mother who devoted her life to her family and was lost in the process. You will never know what it is to find out you can't have kids either. You will never know what it feels like.

I wish you could at least acknowledge that.

and IT WAS MEN who said marriage is slavery, not the feminist. Men have a hand in creating this feminist movement.

And I agree the swinging single lifestyle is no life but the "freeing" notion about motherhood, its freeing in so much, its truth, but alls I'm sayin is, she should not forgot about herself. Some women do not find neglecting themselves all that freeing.

So while your busy preaching to the women about motherhood, you might want to preach to the men about manhood and not being a selfish husband.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I don't know why you keep equating feminism with women who do not have children.

Because ridiculously simplistic strawmen and thoughts that fit on bumper stickers are easier to deal with than anything with any degree of nuance or complexity.