"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 OPmotherhood 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 worldand 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!!