"Happy wife, happy life" is definitely used pejoratively by most, however, my first thought when I hear that is to live it honestly. I want to be the husband that protects and cherishes and pleases my wife, to do everything I can for her--which in turn I'd hope she'd return that affection by cherishing and support me as well. I want to put in the work for and have that mutual selflessness for each other, y'know?
I am learning a lot about Solanus Casey-- he was by many stretches of the imagination a "failed" man. He asked for a woman to marry him as a young man, he was rejected. He later entered the Capuchins, but was not able to keep up with academic rigor of the seminary and so was rejected from becoming a fully practicing priest and was ordained a simplex priest (couldn't preach or hear confessions). As a Capuchin, Casey was assigned the lowest role: doorman. By the standards of the world and the culture Casey was not exceedingly manly. He had a high pitched voice. He was a bit quirky, and he actually would mix in his coffee with his cereal and milk, and had a habit of mixing disparate parts of a meal into one bowl and eating it that way. Casey was soft-spoken, gentle, and loved to play his violin, and was regarded as a bit "quirky" in the words of his fellow friars. Not traditionally manly by any stretch of the imagination. But God does not see the way we see. Despite the outward appearance of Solanus, he worked at least 6000 recorded miracles (cures, conversions, etc) while still alive by his intercessory prayer. His miracles were so common and prodigious, he was ordered out of obedience by his superiors to begin recording them in a book. The lives of many people were completely altered by this humble, unassuming, meek man who stood at the door accepting whoever came through it.
Marriage is never a walk in the park but I see a lot of lessons that the western culture could learn from African culture. Like psychological maturity when entering into marriage and vice versa we could learn to be more monogamous in our relationship. Good topic.
I once read the memoirs of an ex-gay who talked about his fantasies of an embrace. When he was falling asleep, he would fantasize about being held by a man as he was dozing off. He was endeavoring to heal his sexual decisions, and he felt strongly that should include heterosexuality, but he couldn't successfully imagine being held by a woman. But as he worked and matured in his own healing, he recalled the night when he spontaneously fantasized about HOLDING a woman, and a ton of pieces tumbled into place for him.
find the whole 'traditional gender roles' issue to be pretty ridiculous. I would say, live the faith, love your spouse and kids, be an observent Christian, and strive for peace and harmony in your marriage and household. Don't worry about fitting into any kind of gender role. Also, you'd be surprised how often women tend to act as the 'head' in more traditional and seemingly patriarchal (and very Catholic) cultures, to the point where in Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc. many women tend to be quite dominant within their homes and families, and far less meek in public settings than you'd expect.
And of course all adults should have equal civil rights. Not all women want to be married. And many who do marry don’t want to submit in a traditional way and let their husbands represent their civil concerns. There is a distinction between a woman and a wife. A woman is any adult female human with xx chromosomes, while a wife is the helpmeet role.
Stop belittling women who want to be wives and take care of their husbands and children.Nobody is forcing you to get married and follow any traditional role.
It is quite apparent that the biological and psychological imperatives of husbands are to provide, protect, lead and represent, while everything about a wife’s biological and psychological makeup is designed to receive from man and convert these goods and guidelines into a healthful and harmonious atmosphere and existence.
The woman also has her qualities that are exactly the bets of men.But it seems that the ideal of the feminist mentality is that women give up their qualities and do everything to be equal to men.
It's funny to see that women are increasingly rejecting feminism and adhering to traditional roles.If staying at home taking care of your kids and husband were that bad, no one would freely submit to it.You are the one who belittles the role of women and sees women who choose the traditional path as idiots.
Although i agree its most often the case that men propose.. St Giana Molla proposed to her husband if i remember right.. and i do know a Catholic Indian woman who proposed to her husband
I'm so glad that you made that example of unless ( the women or man) has experienced trauma which can also distort the relationship. Being abused often makes the victim feel as though they themselves are the reason the behavior by the abuser took place, and also they might feel like because of their personality- or some other trait they some how caused the abuse, I am speaking on a personal example here. I appreciate how both of you delicately spoke about each of your experiences. I went to an ultra liberal college and saw first hand how the feminist culture vilified men and made them "shut up". I do want to point out though, in terms of the Christian point of view of the dynamics between a man and a women, I am pleading for men to LOVE their wives, if you love/respect/are sensitive to your wife, she would be willing and feel honored to be with you intimately. I was abused and I remember going to the police to make my report the officer as part of his investigation felt he needed to ask me what type of clothes I was wearing( how short was my skirt...), and also critiqued me on why I didn't go to the police right after the incident, instead of the hospital. Yesterday marked four years since, and I have done my best to move on with it- but sadly because of the lack of maturity of men in my peer group and often the blatant disrespect and immaturity often times they would expect me to sleep with them after a certain period of time, so I stopped dating entirely. Even supposedly "Catholic" men I tried to talk to just objectified me instead of trying to earnestly listen and get to know me. Not saying women do not do this to men, but I don't have that experience of trying to date women so I cant speak to that. What I can say is this greater culture of sexual revolution has really made relationships impossible because men and women are just seen as commodities and sex is seen as an exchange... people are even in "polyamory marriages".
This is the reason i dont date anyone. I just clearly see through them and I know that what they want is one thing. Some of them will play a decent man, with prospects, knowledge, values etc but after some time (and I mean after 1 or 2 weeks) it all comes down to that one thing. It’s like they expect something back for all the talking and getting to know each other. Like "ok we talked, spent some time together, i spent some money, now you get into my bed". NEVER! Thats a slap in the face. I am not a sex doll they can rub against. I am not a slut. Why do they think they can treat anyone like that? How can one disrespect basically a stranger like that? Because seeing each other for 2 weeks is NOT knowing each other. They should learn some manners.
@@MaddieSchnitzel yeah I went on three dates with a guy and he told me I was being manipulative by using sex as a tool to tempt him and make him wait , when according to him we went on three whole dates and he spent all this money and most women put out by that time . He did apologies the next day but the trust had already been broken so I didn’t bother pursuing him any further. After the end of another date the guy said I was annoying because apparently I like to talk… now I just keep to myself.
@@kimmenstell2103 lol what kind of mental gymnastics did he do there? 😆 they literally think if they pull all those tricks (which i suspect they took from some online guide), every girl is supposed to react the same way as if by default. But no, we are not robots. Each of us is a different person with a distinct personality. They dont seem to understand that. I like it that i am more of an interesting person (with hobbies, opinions, character etc) than the simple minded superficial people who want to get everything easily and take short cuts with everything. All the best to you!
IMO governments should recognize the importance of marriage by reversing no-fault divorce laws. It's the only contract governments never fight to enforce and jump at the chance of dissolving, without any penalty for the "defaulting" party.
@@Another_Caesar The requirement that a spouse prove fault in request to divorce was standard up until a couple of decades ago. I'm not even saying ban divorce, but yeah, even suggesting limiting it will upset the Michel Foucault spirit.
If two people no longer like each other, or one spouse has gone down an unexpected career path that the other doesn't like, should they be forced to stay together? For a time, my United Methodist district superintendent was a former businessman. He was raised Catholic. He felt a calling to leave the business world and Catholicism and became a Protestant minister. His wife filed for divorce. She didn't want to be married to a Protestant, let alone a low-paid Protestant minister. Now, under most state domestic relations statutes, changing careers and/or religions is not a ground for a "fault" divorce.
Good discussion. I don’t disagree with anything Matt said, but as a woman I feel a great deal of pushback whenever I think of male headship. I think the fear around it comes from the understanding that power seems to be an inherently corrupting force. Anywhere you look that leaders have absolute power, there is almost always abuse. Receptivity to loving leadership is one thing. But when churches, as they often have, make a woman feel like she has to give up the fullness of her humanity to be obedient to another equally mortal sinful human being, it is dehumanizing. And far too many men, feeling they have been given power over their wives, will abuse that power.
It is God who said that a woman must submit to her husband.Do you think God makes mistakes?In exchange for the woman being submissive to her husband, he has the role of killing and dying to protect his wife.You think you think this is dehumanizing is because you don't properly understand this subject.
The Church also teaches that a man must mate and die to protect his family.The submissiveness of the woman to the man comes exactly from this principle, if a situation of danger occurs, it is the man who will have to sacrifice his life for the family.Perhaps your mentality comes from prejudices impregnated in your head by secular and feminist culture.
Traditional roles work for a lot of people but a lot of people find them awkward, inhibiting, and even detrimental. We should all be not too confident in our expectations.
That sounds incredibly masculine mate, being insecure about your expectations. Let us know how you go with that. Just so you know I've tried the whole low/ flexible expectations and no traditional roles thing, and it really doesn't work.
3 examples that PROVE painting with a paintbrush! There's nothing to prove, its a preference. A paintbrush isn't the only way to paint, just because many have and still do prefer the method doesn't mean anything. Human sexuality is an expression of love and passion and friendship, it's just like art in that while their will always ignorant people who deny all but classical styles and methods as "true art", the rest of us will be enjoying the beauty and fun of our own ways of making art.😌 Hope you're all enjoying the summer❤
@@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz made us just two sexes, and yet look at how many colorful and unique things we can create🤗 One could say all flowers have roots and stems and petals, deal with it. Or one could appreciate the wonder of their variety. stay safe friend✌🙂
Great discussion as always. Indeed, this is the natural order of things as told to us by our Creator. In this twisted modern world, words are being distorted. It’s time we go back to the fundamentals. Instead of traditional, we need to call it natural. We only have to look at our “man” (you will have to fill in the Latin word for man with what I mean here) friends and look at their relationships. Is there not always one that is feminine and one that is masculine? Even in their relationships, the natural order of how things ought to be is clearly seen by anyone with eyes. To Abigail’s point. Yes, indeed the Evil One absolutely hates women. Why? Let us recall Revelations chapter 12. It is through a woman that our Lord was born. I’m sure people wonder why the E.O. carries on since our Lord has been born. We only have to think of the natural talents all women are born with. How close they are to humility, grace, and piety. How easy it would be for such women to create true sons and daughters of Christ. We are in the midst of a great battle for souls. Let us all make sure he does NOT win. I often think of what the E.O. said to St. John of Vianney: "If there were three such priests as you, my kingdom would be ruined." Let’s make it happen boys! For the glory of God!
@Big Dick Black Support of something does not make that thing right. Stats are fine and dandy, until we start peeling back the layers. Majority of Americans in the colonial days supported slavery, does that make it right? Majority of Americans supported the genocide of the native populations, does that make it right? Nearly half of Germans supported Himdolf Pitler, does that make it right? One only has to look around our very dark world to see what support has gotten us. The complete and utter decimation of the family structure. Was it not Jesus speaking through Abraham Lincoln that said “A house divided cannot stand.” Well I say to you, “BDB”, is America divided?
I hate that word “submit”. It makes the one who submits sound “lesser” than the one submitted to. Why can’t we say, “A husband and wife ought to cooperate with one another as equal partners”?
The word submit is used because that is what is used by Saint Paul in the Bible. Husband and wife are equal before God, but God ordained the husband to be be the leader and protector of the family. Also women are called to submit, in my personal opinion, because it is harder for them to do so, and is therefore a greater aid to their salvation. Men generally are eager to submit themselves in a hierarchy, which is why they are drawn to things like team sports, the military and martial arts. Even though something like the marine corps by all appearances "sucks" many men find that they miss the structure and routine and hierarchy provided meaning to their lives. On the other hand men are called to lead because their natural disposition, except rare few alpha males, are naturally quite passive. There are far more husbands who let their lives run the show, than vice versa. How many women complain that their husband feels like raising another child, versus how many women complain their husband is too domineering and controlling? Aside from this, there are many things in the Bible that are a tougher saying than this. Jesus calls us to lay down our life, to lose our life for His sake. He calls us to make war against all of our passions. The be PERFECT like He is perfect. To love virtue, to forgive and love those who have wronged us, even if they stole from, raped or abused us. Submitting to the husband seems like one of the smaller asks of a Christian woman. Maybe easy for me to say, because I am not a woman. But if you are a Christian it is your duty to first obey the commandments, and then after obeying the commandments you will begin to have a softer heart and you may be blessed to understand the meaning of God's laws (this is a great joy). For example, we cannot understand the value of mercy until we have given it, or the value of tithing until we do so. These things are good for our souls. Hope this makes sense.
Kathleen, I find it helps to substitute the words "put up with" instead of "submit to"!!! But seriously, it seems that it's the same word used when Jesus was found in the temple and then was subject to his parents as he grew up. Their mission was to raise him and teach him and keep him safe, and his role was to submit himself to his role as beneficiary of their protection and education. I think men's role is to protect their family - not to be important or powerful or have a fancy career - and it behooves women to step into the reality that their mission is benefited by the man's support. Women's mission, I believe, is more eschatalogical, and their men, while they can't directly share in that mission, live to support and protect it, like Mary and Joseph supporting and protecting Jesus to make it possible for him to fulfill his mission. I think that's the best analogy: man = Mary-and-Joseph; woman = Jesus-as-a-minor.
@@chadpilled7913 doesn't submit in the Bible mean "under the mission?" Then what would be the mission of a husband? It would be to protect and lead. Thus I think submission would be for the wife to be under the mission of a husband. But notice that Saint Paul also couples that with how Christ sacrificed for the Church. So, a more accurate definition for submission would be for the wife to allow the husband to sacrifice for them. Being domineering and not helping out with household chores are not examples of male headship, which unfortunately I think we take from the 1950s idea of male headship, and the husband comes home and expects the wife to always have dinner ready for him and not do anything in return.
Probably not. I think that proves a strong point. Not everyone is the same and follows the the stereotypes of their gender. It's all about preference and what works for you and your partner. You may need to compromise in some instances, but nothing should be forced upon you.
@@MaddieSchnitzel I did but just for you I listened to the whole thing again and I didn't hear them discuss how easy or not the idea would be received by those whose masculine drive to give or feminine drive to receive has been distorted. Feel free to correct me.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 well, they talked about cases where a woman is abused and the traditional gender role will not work for her. Because of course if at least one of the couple does not abide by God's will, the balance is distorted, and the woman has to be both a man and a woman in order to put things back in order. But thats not the way it's supposed to be in the first place. Thus if we follow Jesus and his rules, only then traditional marriage will be successful. If we willingly live in sin, our selfishness and vanity get in the way of common interest.
@@MaddieSchnitzel Yes, agreed. I'll tell you my version if you like. I am a man who had a distorted male role model who was too imposing and oppressive. Everything that made me choose to go a different path so as not to end up that way. When I became an atheist (I'm not anymore) I found the "freedom" to indulge the opposite distortion as I desperately tried to discover who I was supposed to be. I ended up fetishising my model of masculinity because I was confused and torn between trying to become like it or being loved by it and I evoked submissiveness in myself and was all over the place. Never satisfied. Then I encountered God and chose chastity to draw nearer, which was a relief. Then God pointed me toward Christ and confirmed the truth and Christ shone a light on all of this so I managed to escape the confusion. But thinking back to when I thought my submissive aspect was genuinely me, though I wasn't certain, I knew many who were. And I think they would hear this as an attack. I suspect/hope that somewhere they would recognise truth but it would be so hurtful to acknowledge that it would trigger extreme defensiveness and rejection. They need reassurance of the good version of masculinity. Probably some men need the same reassurance about femininity based on their own formative experiences. They simply don't know the confidence in the truth they fake behind their strained and pained eyes. I wouldn't either except for that instantaneous illumination Christ provided the first time I addressed Him as God. I hadn't asked and had accepted the whole thing as a cross to bear, but I think it was His grace to provide undeniable confirmation to my far too skeptical mind.
@Big Dick Black So the number of people supporting a position determines it value and truthfulness? That has never been a Christian approach. It knows that sin and worldliness are always obstacles. I don't agree with his examples, they have limited value.
Neither of those examples prove traditional gender roles in any way. Maybe for some couples those roles would work, but there are certainly plenty of examples where traditional gender roles are not good.
It works only when man and woman give their lives to Christ first. If people live in sin, their vanity and selfishness gets in the way and that's why such system doesnt work. People would rather serve themselves than others. But true happiness is found in sharing and togetherness.
Huh. Interesting observations. Ones that I think are very well held up looking at pop culture writings, and art. Sure, there is evidence to the contrary, but the archetypal man embracing a woman, or the reverse where a man is being comforted by a woman during a dark hour, are there, as well as all other forms. I've *never* seen a woman propose to a man. Such a proposition feels scandalous, unless one is dealing with a queen arranging a political marriage for herself. Sure, there are things out there that reject this form... but they aren't as popular. The more fiercely it's rejected, it seems the worse the final product is. And people can feel it out. Something is just wrong to it.
Honestly, I've not really enjoyed most of the segments with this woman. A lot of cringe claims and soft feminism being pushed. She comes across as someone just spouting her private opinions, which really isn't the point of this channel. Most of her comments come across as wanting to espouse and maintain as much of modern feminism as possible, while just barely passing the minimum to be Catholic. This entire segment was basically her disagreeing with Matt and focused only on the "exception" he gave. This is typical of male to female dialogue though.
Dude, all of the things on this channel are basically private opinions. Lots of traditions and dogmas are just private opinions held by majority of people who have power and resources. I don't necessarily agree with everything this guest says, but as far as feminism, she is actually very conservative.
@@AntonAchondoa private opinions in the sense of holding ideas that aren't based upon objective standards like Natural Law or Divine Revelation, or even a respectable theologians. She's feminist because of feelings, not because of Reason.
@@Nick-rb1dc I acknowledge the excesses of certain strains of feminism, but what is unnatural or illogical about a basic for of feminism that promotes legal rights for women's participation in society and the workplace? Women are equal to men and have the right to equal pay for equal work and to voice their opinions on the course of society and culture. It's as basic as that. If you oppose that, I'd be curious as to why. Also objective morality is a complicated thing. Even if there is an objective standard, it is still subjectively understood. Natural law needs to be worked out by thinkers and our understanding of it must be constantly reevaluated and refined. These things are not rigid nor are they always self-evident. While I personally accept that sex is binary (intersex folks being the rare exception that must be treated with utmost compassion), it does not follow that sex-based roles must be rigid. Most the behaviors described by Matt in this video are social constructs without any kind of moral value. Naturally, he is entitled to his opinion and his preferences. Nothing wrong there. As for divine revelation, that only applies to specific religious groups rather than the whole of society so it is not viable to base secular society's rules on one particular religion's view points. I am not really the biggest Ben Shapiro fan, but I particularly like something he said to the effect of "While I am a Jew, the things I support in terms of governance must have a rational basis, not merely a scriptural one." I'm paraphrasing here...
@@AntonAchondoa the "rights" that feminism has secured for women have almost entirely been a bad development for society. For example, the capitalist distortion of the relationship between humans and labor has twisted our minds to seeing men and women as nothing but laborors for wages. Women feel dehumanized if they cannot have a career and aren't making money. By arguing for equal pay, we've fallen into a trap of making the wage the principal end goal of men and women, rather than seeing the wage as a means towards something else, namely providing for a family. A woman cannot both have a career and a family, as is plain by what we've seen the past several decades where women are now pursuing a career before marriage, delaying marriage, not getting married, having fewer kids, while meanwhile having sterile sex, and even when married are now often required to work because the husband isn't making enough. This is what the equal pay mindset gets us. Instead, the Church has repeatedly said wages are ultimately for supporting a family, not for the atomizing of society so each person can compare each other by who has more disposable. As such, a wage must be "just", meaning it must be sufficient to allow as husband to provide for the basic needs of his family so that the wife doesn't have to work and instead can raise children and maintain the home. With a wife working, the home is abandoned or delegated to a third party, which is a far greater perversion of society than anything feminism allegedly seeks to correct. Same with women voting, this agenda was ultimately to atomize society by turning the building block of society from the family to now being a "society" of nothing but individuals, each seeking to live as they please apart from any larger goal and apart from any common good. The female right to vote now directly undermines the husband's authority within marriage, since she can nullify his vote with hers, and indirectly by promoting a society where a woman doesn't need a man, because now the government can supply her needs if enough women gather and vote in to supply what a husband is supposed to supply her. Also, a Catholic is not free to separate what Natural Law says and what Divine Revelation says, especially since the Church is the custodian and faithful interpreter of both. And since Divine Revelation is just as true as natural law, both are authoritative, with DR possibly more so since it was directly given by God. What I have expressed is hard for most people to accept, because even though what I'm saying is based upon objective truth, we are conditioned to see "rights" and atomized living as our highest good, not God nor even any Common Good.
@@Nick-rb1dc I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful response. A few things though. The idea of feminism undermining the husbands authority is problematic, because to always submit to the husbands authority presumes that husbands, and men for that matter, consistently know what's best. I know plenty of families that benefited more from the woman's wisdom rather than the man's lack thereof. I agree with you that capitalism has been problematic in our relationship with money and labor. We need to move toward social democracy imho. Having said that, a woman should have the opportunity to pursue her dreams and career. Motherhood can be beautiful. Family unity can be beautiful. But they are not the only paths for women to take. Also I have to disagree with the uncritical acceptance of Divine Revelation. To simply accept dogmatic views without challenge, even from the Church, is too similar to authoritarian Russia and China. The Church has governance over prayer and spirituality, but her priests, a bunch of old, celibate men, undoubtedly have a limited capacity to understand the gender dynamics in society. It is problematic to assert that their interpretation of DR is automatically objective. Everything is based on interpretation. No one has direct access to God. We just strive towards the Truth.
🙄🙄🙄 I can not eye roll enough for this misogynistic guff! I am pleased you and your wife work this way. Leave other people to do things their way. God works through love in more ways than one. 🙄🙄🙄
If one is not paying attention....one could miss the subtle verbal innuendoes and flirtations across the table during your videos with Abigail....The question I have for you Matt....is...do you still hold your wife's hand when walking around the mall? In fact a few naive viewers think Abigail is your wife.
Seeing that huge tatoo on her arm is disgusting. The bible says you should not defile yourself in anyway. Tattoo is one of them. So I lost interest in what ever she has to say.
That’s the Old Testament and we don’t follow the Old Testament laws. How Christian of you to say such horrible things about her for a tattoo? I have a half sleeve and you know nothing about me. Getting Pharisee vibes 😏
So glad Jesus doesn’t view us this way. You have a lot to learn. You could meet someone who wears a chapel veil and a long skirt, who is sleeping around the community but by God she has her devotions and says her rosary etc. you know nothing about a person just from their appearance.
@Linda Radcliff Keep in mind that she's an ex-feminist and convert. She probably got the tattoo a long time before her conversion and doesn't like it anymore.
You lose interest in what someone has to say simply because she has a tatto, based on a norm from the ceremonial law (that was already fulfiled by Christ); What an amazing example of superficial wrong judging.
How can someone's tattoo, choice of dress, hair color, or other superficial aspects invalidate her ideas? Just listen to what she has to say. You may discover something.
Interesting. Satan hating women in particular. Maybe because submissive strength is what he utterly rejected in himself?
🤯
"Happy wife, happy life" is definitely used pejoratively by most, however, my first thought when I hear that is to live it honestly. I want to be the husband that protects and cherishes and pleases my wife, to do everything I can for her--which in turn I'd hope she'd return that affection by cherishing and support me as well. I want to put in the work for and have that mutual selflessness for each other, y'know?
@@Anyone690 Not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Happy spouse, happy house!!
@@Anyone690 I’m not religious and I’m happy
This woman is great! She's tremendously blessed. Greetings!
I am learning a lot about Solanus Casey-- he was by many stretches of the imagination a "failed" man. He asked for a woman to marry him as a young man, he was rejected. He later entered the Capuchins, but was not able to keep up with academic rigor of the seminary and so was rejected from becoming a fully practicing priest and was ordained a simplex priest (couldn't preach or hear confessions). As a Capuchin, Casey was assigned the lowest role: doorman.
By the standards of the world and the culture Casey was not exceedingly manly. He had a high pitched voice. He was a bit quirky, and he actually would mix in his coffee with his cereal and milk, and had a habit of mixing disparate parts of a meal into one bowl and eating it that way. Casey was soft-spoken, gentle, and loved to play his violin, and was regarded as a bit "quirky" in the words of his fellow friars. Not traditionally manly by any stretch of the imagination.
But God does not see the way we see. Despite the outward appearance of Solanus, he worked at least 6000 recorded miracles (cures, conversions, etc) while still alive by his intercessory prayer. His miracles were so common and prodigious, he was ordered out of obedience by his superiors to begin recording them in a book. The lives of many people were completely altered by this humble, unassuming, meek man who stood at the door accepting whoever came through it.
Beautiful comment, powerful.
Thank you
Thank you for sharing
Marriage is never a walk in the park but I see a lot of lessons that the western culture could learn from African culture. Like psychological maturity when entering into marriage and vice versa we could learn to be more monogamous in our relationship. Good topic.
I once read the memoirs of an ex-gay who talked about his fantasies of an embrace. When he was falling asleep, he would fantasize about being held by a man as he was dozing off. He was endeavoring to heal his sexual decisions, and he felt strongly that should include heterosexuality, but he couldn't successfully imagine being held by a woman. But as he worked and matured in his own healing, he recalled the night when he spontaneously fantasized about HOLDING a woman, and a ton of pieces tumbled into place for him.
Interesting, makes you wonder the relationship with the father.
Never heard of this guest before, unfortunately. Her wisdom is very evident. Bravo.
There are many great Catholics out there who you may have never heard before
find the whole 'traditional gender roles' issue to be pretty ridiculous. I would say, live the faith, love your spouse and kids, be an observent Christian, and strive for peace and harmony in your marriage and household. Don't worry about fitting into any kind of gender role. Also, you'd be surprised how often women tend to act as the 'head' in more traditional and seemingly patriarchal (and very Catholic) cultures, to the point where in Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc. many women tend to be quite dominant within their homes and families, and far less meek in public settings than you'd expect.
I'm never refusing being the little spoon.
And of course all adults should have equal civil rights. Not all women want to be married. And many who do marry don’t want to submit in a traditional way and let their husbands represent their civil concerns. There is a distinction between a woman and a wife. A woman is any adult female human with xx chromosomes, while a wife is the helpmeet role.
Hey, in the Catholic Church women do not have to marry if they do not want to.
Stop belittling women who want to be wives and take care of their husbands and children.Nobody is forcing you to get married and follow any traditional role.
@@brendabrenda6782 I don't think she was belittling at all. She's simply saying not all people want that same dynamic in their relationship.
It is quite apparent that the biological and psychological imperatives of husbands are to provide, protect, lead and represent, while everything about a wife’s biological and psychological makeup is designed to receive from man and convert these goods and guidelines into a healthful and harmonious atmosphere and existence.
The woman also has her qualities that are exactly the bets of men.But it seems that the ideal of the feminist mentality is that women give up their qualities and do everything to be equal to men.
It's funny to see that women are increasingly rejecting feminism and adhering to traditional roles.If staying at home taking care of your kids and husband were that bad, no one would freely submit to it.You are the one who belittles the role of women and sees women who choose the traditional path as idiots.
Although i agree its most often the case that men propose.. St Giana Molla proposed to her husband if i remember right.. and i do know a Catholic Indian woman who proposed to her husband
It is certainly not necessary to be rigid with these traditions. Your examples are a great testament to that.
There is also the tradition that women can propose in a Leap Year on the 29th February
A man letting God love the woman through him... a wonderful way to look at it!
I'm so glad that you made that example of unless ( the women or man) has experienced trauma which can also distort the relationship. Being abused often makes the victim feel as though they themselves are the reason the behavior by the abuser took place, and also they might feel like because of their personality- or some other trait they some how caused the abuse, I am speaking on a personal example here. I appreciate how both of you delicately spoke about each of your experiences. I went to an ultra liberal college and saw first hand how the feminist culture vilified men and made them "shut up".
I do want to point out though, in terms of the Christian point of view of the dynamics between a man and a women, I am pleading for men to LOVE their wives, if you love/respect/are sensitive to your wife, she would be willing and feel honored to be with you intimately.
I was abused and I remember going to the police to make my report the officer as part of his investigation felt he needed to ask me what type of clothes I was wearing( how short was my skirt...), and also critiqued me on why I didn't go to the police right after the incident, instead of the hospital. Yesterday marked four years since, and I have done my best to move on with it- but sadly because of the lack of maturity of men in my peer group and often the blatant disrespect and immaturity often times they would expect me to sleep with them after a certain period of time, so I stopped dating entirely. Even supposedly "Catholic" men I tried to talk to just objectified me instead of trying to earnestly listen and get to know me. Not saying women do not do this to men, but I don't have that experience of trying to date women so I cant speak to that. What I can say is this greater culture of sexual revolution has really made relationships impossible because men and women are just seen as commodities and sex is seen as an exchange... people are even in "polyamory marriages".
This is the reason i dont date anyone. I just clearly see through them and I know that what they want is one thing. Some of them will play a decent man, with prospects, knowledge, values etc but after some time (and I mean after 1 or 2 weeks) it all comes down to that one thing. It’s like they expect something back for all the talking and getting to know each other. Like "ok we talked, spent some time together, i spent some money, now you get into my bed". NEVER! Thats a slap in the face. I am not a sex doll they can rub against. I am not a slut. Why do they think they can treat anyone like that? How can one disrespect basically a stranger like that? Because seeing each other for 2 weeks is NOT knowing each other. They should learn some manners.
@@MaddieSchnitzel yeah I went on three dates with a guy and he told me I was being manipulative by using sex as a tool to tempt him and make him wait , when according to him we went on three whole dates and he spent all this money and most women put out by that time . He did apologies the next day but the trust had already been broken so I didn’t bother pursuing him any further. After the end of another date the guy said I was annoying because apparently I like to talk… now I just keep to myself.
@@kimmenstell2103 lol what kind of mental gymnastics did he do there? 😆 they literally think if they pull all those tricks (which i suspect they took from some online guide), every girl is supposed to react the same way as if by default. But no, we are not robots. Each of us is a different person with a distinct personality. They dont seem to understand that.
I like it that i am more of an interesting person (with hobbies, opinions, character etc) than the simple minded superficial people who want to get everything easily and take short cuts with everything.
All the best to you!
IMO governments should recognize the importance of marriage by reversing no-fault divorce laws. It's the only contract governments never fight to enforce and jump at the chance of dissolving, without any penalty for the "defaulting" party.
@@Another_Caesar The requirement that a spouse prove fault in request to divorce was standard up until a couple of decades ago. I'm not even saying ban divorce, but yeah, even suggesting limiting it will upset the Michel Foucault spirit.
If two people no longer like each other, or one spouse has gone down an unexpected career path that the other doesn't like, should they be forced to stay together?
For a time, my United Methodist district superintendent was a former businessman. He was raised Catholic. He felt a calling to leave the business world and Catholicism and became a Protestant minister.
His wife filed for divorce. She didn't want to be married to a Protestant, let alone a low-paid Protestant minister.
Now, under most state domestic relations statutes, changing careers and/or religions is not a ground for a "fault" divorce.
Good discussion. I don’t disagree with anything Matt said, but as a woman I feel a great deal of pushback whenever I think of male headship. I think the fear around it comes from the understanding that power seems to be an inherently corrupting force. Anywhere you look that leaders have absolute power, there is almost always abuse. Receptivity to loving leadership is one thing. But when churches, as they often have, make a woman feel like she has to give up the fullness of her humanity to be obedient to another equally mortal sinful human being, it is dehumanizing. And far too many men, feeling they have been given power over their wives, will abuse that power.
Wouldn't this stance reject all hierarchies?
@@tomemery7890 there is hierarchy but it excludes abusing power
It is God who said that a woman must submit to her husband.Do you think God makes mistakes?In exchange for the woman being submissive to her husband, he has the role of killing and dying to protect his wife.You think you think this is dehumanizing is because you don't properly understand this subject.
Everyone sins. Doesn't that change women's obligations to their husbands and husbands to their wives?
The Church also teaches that a man must mate and die to protect his family.The submissiveness of the woman to the man comes exactly from this principle, if a situation of danger occurs, it is the man who will have to sacrifice his life for the family.Perhaps your mentality comes from prejudices impregnated in your head by secular and feminist culture.
Traditional roles work for a lot of people but a lot of people find them awkward, inhibiting, and even detrimental. We should all be not too confident in our expectations.
That sounds incredibly masculine mate, being insecure about your expectations. Let us know how you go with that.
Just so you know I've tried the whole low/ flexible expectations and no traditional roles thing, and it really doesn't work.
I'm with you my friend. It's good to have ideals and traditions. It does not follow, however, that these things should be rigid.
How nice to have a First Lady now who is not a stripper
@@AntonAchondoa “rigidness”
Traditional roles are simply a fact.If you don't follow human nature don't expect your relationship to work out.
4:40 she's so right. Women, hold on to your femininity. Remember how special you are and how much God loves you
3 examples that PROVE painting with a paintbrush!
There's nothing to prove, its a preference. A paintbrush isn't the only way to paint, just because many have and still do prefer the method doesn't mean anything. Human sexuality is an expression of love and passion and friendship, it's just like art in that while their will always ignorant people who deny all but classical styles and methods as "true art", the rest of us will be enjoying the beauty and fun of our own ways of making art.😌
Hope you're all enjoying the summer❤
Nature made humans in 2 sexes. Deal with it. It's not a choice.
@@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz made us just two sexes, and yet look at how many colorful and unique things we can create🤗
One could say all flowers have roots and stems and petals, deal with it. Or one could appreciate the wonder of their variety.
stay safe friend✌🙂
Great discussion as always.
Indeed, this is the natural order of things as told to us by our Creator.
In this twisted modern world, words are being distorted. It’s time we go back to the fundamentals. Instead of traditional, we need to call it natural.
We only have to look at our “man” (you will have to fill in the Latin word for man with what I mean here) friends and look at their relationships. Is there not always one that is feminine and one that is masculine? Even in their relationships, the natural order of how things ought to be is clearly seen by anyone with eyes.
To Abigail’s point. Yes, indeed the Evil One absolutely hates women. Why? Let us recall Revelations chapter 12.
It is through a woman that our Lord was born. I’m sure people wonder why the E.O. carries on since our Lord has been born.
We only have to think of the natural talents all women are born with. How close they are to humility, grace, and piety.
How easy it would be for such women to create true sons and daughters of Christ.
We are in the midst of a great battle for souls. Let us all make sure he does NOT win.
I often think of what the E.O. said to St. John of Vianney:
"If there were three such priests as you, my kingdom would be ruined."
Let’s make it happen boys!
For the glory of God!
@Big Dick Black
Support of something does not make that thing right. Stats are fine and dandy, until we start peeling back the layers.
Majority of Americans in the colonial days supported slavery, does that make it right?
Majority of Americans supported the genocide of the native populations, does that make it right?
Nearly half of Germans supported Himdolf Pitler, does that make it right?
One only has to look around our very dark world to see what support has gotten us.
The complete and utter decimation of the family structure.
Was it not Jesus speaking through Abraham Lincoln that said “A house divided cannot stand.”
Well I say to you, “BDB”, is America divided?
Please: "E.O."?
Good for her for pointing out the hubris.
I dissagree with the first point but agree with the second point
I hate that word “submit”. It makes the one who submits sound “lesser” than the one submitted to. Why can’t we say, “A husband and wife ought to cooperate with one another as equal partners”?
The word submit is used because that is what is used by Saint Paul in the Bible. Husband and wife are equal before God, but God ordained the husband to be be the leader and protector of the family. Also women are called to submit, in my personal opinion, because it is harder for them to do so, and is therefore a greater aid to their salvation. Men generally are eager to submit themselves in a hierarchy, which is why they are drawn to things like team sports, the military and martial arts. Even though something like the marine corps by all appearances "sucks" many men find that they miss the structure and routine and hierarchy provided meaning to their lives.
On the other hand men are called to lead because their natural disposition, except rare few alpha males, are naturally quite passive. There are far more husbands who let their lives run the show, than vice versa. How many women complain that their husband feels like raising another child, versus how many women complain their husband is too domineering and controlling?
Aside from this, there are many things in the Bible that are a tougher saying than this. Jesus calls us to lay down our life, to lose our life for His sake. He calls us to make war against all of our passions. The be PERFECT like He is perfect. To love virtue, to forgive and love those who have wronged us, even if they stole from, raped or abused us.
Submitting to the husband seems like one of the smaller asks of a Christian woman. Maybe easy for me to say, because I am not a woman. But if you are a Christian it is your duty to first obey the commandments, and then after obeying the commandments you will begin to have a softer heart and you may be blessed to understand the meaning of God's laws (this is a great joy).
For example, we cannot understand the value of mercy until we have given it, or the value of tithing until we do so. These things are good for our souls.
Hope this makes sense.
Kathleen, I find it helps to substitute the words "put up with" instead of "submit to"!!! But seriously, it seems that it's the same word used when Jesus was found in the temple and then was subject to his parents as he grew up. Their mission was to raise him and teach him and keep him safe, and his role was to submit himself to his role as beneficiary of their protection and education. I think men's role is to protect their family - not to be important or powerful or have a fancy career - and it behooves women to step into the reality that their mission is benefited by the man's support. Women's mission, I believe, is more eschatalogical, and their men, while they can't directly share in that mission, live to support and protect it, like Mary and Joseph supporting and protecting Jesus to make it possible for him to fulfill his mission. I think that's the best analogy: man = Mary-and-Joseph; woman = Jesus-as-a-minor.
@@chadpilled7913 doesn't submit in the Bible mean "under the mission?" Then what would be the mission of a husband? It would be to protect and lead. Thus I think submission would be for the wife to be under the mission of a husband. But notice that Saint Paul also couples that with how Christ sacrificed for the Church. So, a more accurate definition for submission would be for the wife to allow the husband to sacrifice for them. Being domineering and not helping out with household chores are not examples of male headship, which unfortunately I think we take from the 1950s idea of male headship, and the husband comes home and expects the wife to always have dinner ready for him and not do anything in return.
Am I the only one who doesn't like to be held when I'm having a break down?
Probably not. I think that proves a strong point. Not everyone is the same and follows the the stereotypes of their gender. It's all about preference and what works for you and your partner. You may need to compromise in some instances, but nothing should be forced upon you.
I suspect you're right but there's no way you'd be convincing to someone who's experience differs due to factors like abuse or poor archetypes etc.
They basically just said that. Did you listen to it at all?
@@MaddieSchnitzel I did but just for you I listened to the whole thing again and I didn't hear them discuss how easy or not the idea would be received by those whose masculine drive to give or feminine drive to receive has been distorted. Feel free to correct me.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 well, they talked about cases where a woman is abused and the traditional gender role will not work for her. Because of course if at least one of the couple does not abide by God's will, the balance is distorted, and the woman has to be both a man and a woman in order to put things back in order. But thats not the way it's supposed to be in the first place. Thus if we follow Jesus and his rules, only then traditional marriage will be successful. If we willingly live in sin, our selfishness and vanity get in the way of common interest.
@@MaddieSchnitzel Yes, agreed. I'll tell you my version if you like.
I am a man who had a distorted male role model who was too imposing and oppressive. Everything that made me choose to go a different path so as not to end up that way. When I became an atheist (I'm not anymore) I found the "freedom" to indulge the opposite distortion as I desperately tried to discover who I was supposed to be. I ended up fetishising my model of masculinity because I was confused and torn between trying to become like it or being loved by it and I evoked submissiveness in myself and was all over the place. Never satisfied.
Then I encountered God and chose chastity to draw nearer, which was a relief. Then God pointed me toward Christ and confirmed the truth and Christ shone a light on all of this so I managed to escape the confusion.
But thinking back to when I thought my submissive aspect was genuinely me, though I wasn't certain, I knew many who were. And I think they would hear this as an attack. I suspect/hope that somewhere they would recognise truth but it would be so hurtful to acknowledge that it would trigger extreme defensiveness and rejection. They need reassurance of the good version of masculinity. Probably some men need the same reassurance about femininity based on their own formative experiences. They simply don't know the confidence in the truth they fake behind their strained and pained eyes. I wouldn't either except for that instantaneous illumination Christ provided the first time I addressed Him as God. I hadn't asked and had accepted the whole thing as a cross to bear, but I think it was His grace to provide undeniable confirmation to my far too skeptical mind.
Another bad saying is the self-depricating claim, "She's my better half". NO- she's your other half.
Amen to that!
I would have liked it if she would have expressed the woman as a person in each of those examples.
@Big Dick Black So the number of people supporting a position determines it value and truthfulness?
That has never been a Christian approach. It knows that sin and worldliness are always obstacles.
I don't agree with his examples, they have limited value.
Neither of those examples prove traditional gender roles in any way. Maybe for some couples those roles would work, but there are certainly plenty of examples where traditional gender roles are not good.
Yup, just because things were traditionally done one way does not mean that was the optimal way
It works only when man and woman give their lives to Christ first. If people live in sin, their vanity and selfishness gets in the way and that's why such system doesnt work. People would rather serve themselves than others. But true happiness is found in sharing and togetherness.
What are these examples?
When a war happens who will die to protect the country, men or women?
@@brendabrenda6782 Whoever wants to. It can be men or women.
And you all wanted a stripper as First Lady in 2016 and 2020 because?
Huh. Interesting observations. Ones that I think are very well held up looking at pop culture writings, and art. Sure, there is evidence to the contrary, but the archetypal man embracing a woman, or the reverse where a man is being comforted by a woman during a dark hour, are there, as well as all other forms. I've *never* seen a woman propose to a man. Such a proposition feels scandalous, unless one is dealing with a queen arranging a political marriage for herself.
Sure, there are things out there that reject this form... but they aren't as popular. The more fiercely it's rejected, it seems the worse the final product is. And people can feel it out. Something is just wrong to it.
Honestly, I've not really enjoyed most of the segments with this woman. A lot of cringe claims and soft feminism being pushed. She comes across as someone just spouting her private opinions, which really isn't the point of this channel. Most of her comments come across as wanting to espouse and maintain as much of modern feminism as possible, while just barely passing the minimum to be Catholic. This entire segment was basically her disagreeing with Matt and focused only on the "exception" he gave. This is typical of male to female dialogue though.
Dude, all of the things on this channel are basically private opinions. Lots of traditions and dogmas are just private opinions held by majority of people who have power and resources. I don't necessarily agree with everything this guest says, but as far as feminism, she is actually very conservative.
@@AntonAchondoa private opinions in the sense of holding ideas that aren't based upon objective standards like Natural Law or Divine Revelation, or even a respectable theologians. She's feminist because of feelings, not because of Reason.
@@Nick-rb1dc I acknowledge the excesses of certain strains of feminism, but what is unnatural or illogical about a basic for of feminism that promotes legal rights for women's participation in society and the workplace? Women are equal to men and have the right to equal pay for equal work and to voice their opinions on the course of society and culture. It's as basic as that. If you oppose that, I'd be curious as to why.
Also objective morality is a complicated thing. Even if there is an objective standard, it is still subjectively understood. Natural law needs to be worked out by thinkers and our understanding of it must be constantly reevaluated and refined. These things are not rigid nor are they always self-evident. While I personally accept that sex is binary (intersex folks being the rare exception that must be treated with utmost compassion), it does not follow that sex-based roles must be rigid. Most the behaviors described by Matt in this video are social constructs without any kind of moral value. Naturally, he is entitled to his opinion and his preferences. Nothing wrong there.
As for divine revelation, that only applies to specific religious groups rather than the whole of society so it is not viable to base secular society's rules on one particular religion's view points. I am not really the biggest Ben Shapiro fan, but I particularly like something he said to the effect of "While I am a Jew, the things I support in terms of governance must have a rational basis, not merely a scriptural one." I'm paraphrasing here...
@@AntonAchondoa the "rights" that feminism has secured for women have almost entirely been a bad development for society. For example, the capitalist distortion of the relationship between humans and labor has twisted our minds to seeing men and women as nothing but laborors for wages. Women feel dehumanized if they cannot have a career and aren't making money. By arguing for equal pay, we've fallen into a trap of making the wage the principal end goal of men and women, rather than seeing the wage as a means towards something else, namely providing for a family. A woman cannot both have a career and a family, as is plain by what we've seen the past several decades where women are now pursuing a career before marriage, delaying marriage, not getting married, having fewer kids, while meanwhile having sterile sex, and even when married are now often required to work because the husband isn't making enough. This is what the equal pay mindset gets us. Instead, the Church has repeatedly said wages are ultimately for supporting a family, not for the atomizing of society so each person can compare each other by who has more disposable. As such, a wage must be "just", meaning it must be sufficient to allow as husband to provide for the basic needs of his family so that the wife doesn't have to work and instead can raise children and maintain the home. With a wife working, the home is abandoned or delegated to a third party, which is a far greater perversion of society than anything feminism allegedly seeks to correct. Same with women voting, this agenda was ultimately to atomize society by turning the building block of society from the family to now being a "society" of nothing but individuals, each seeking to live as they please apart from any larger goal and apart from any common good.
The female right to vote now directly undermines the husband's authority within marriage, since she can nullify his vote with hers, and indirectly by promoting a society where a woman doesn't need a man, because now the government can supply her needs if enough women gather and vote in to supply what a husband is supposed to supply her.
Also, a Catholic is not free to separate what Natural Law says and what Divine Revelation says, especially since the Church is the custodian and faithful interpreter of both. And since Divine Revelation is just as true as natural law, both are authoritative, with DR possibly more so since it was directly given by God.
What I have expressed is hard for most people to accept, because even though what I'm saying is based upon objective truth, we are conditioned to see "rights" and atomized living as our highest good, not God nor even any Common Good.
@@Nick-rb1dc I appreciate your thorough and thoughtful response. A few things though.
The idea of feminism undermining the husbands authority is problematic, because to always submit to the husbands authority presumes that husbands, and men for that matter, consistently know what's best. I know plenty of families that benefited more from the woman's wisdom rather than the man's lack thereof.
I agree with you that capitalism has been problematic in our relationship with money and labor. We need to move toward social democracy imho. Having said that, a woman should have the opportunity to pursue her dreams and career. Motherhood can be beautiful. Family unity can be beautiful. But they are not the only paths for women to take.
Also I have to disagree with the uncritical acceptance of Divine Revelation. To simply accept dogmatic views without challenge, even from the Church, is too similar to authoritarian Russia and China. The Church has governance over prayer and spirituality, but her priests, a bunch of old, celibate men, undoubtedly have a limited capacity to understand the gender dynamics in society. It is problematic to assert that their interpretation of DR is automatically objective. Everything is based on interpretation. No one has direct access to God. We just strive towards the Truth.
🙄🙄🙄 I can not eye roll enough for this misogynistic guff! I am pleased you and your wife work this way. Leave other people to do things their way. God works through love in more ways than one. 🙄🙄🙄
If one is not paying attention....one could miss the subtle verbal innuendoes and flirtations across the table during your videos with Abigail....The question I have for you Matt....is...do you still hold your wife's hand when walking around the mall? In fact a few naive viewers think Abigail is your wife.
Take a deep breath and perhaps a break from YT.
Seeing that huge tatoo on her arm is disgusting. The bible says you should not defile yourself in anyway. Tattoo is one of them. So I lost interest in what ever she has to say.
That’s the Old Testament and we don’t follow the Old Testament laws. How Christian of you to say such horrible things about her for a tattoo? I have a half sleeve and you know nothing about me. Getting Pharisee vibes 😏
So glad Jesus doesn’t view us this way. You have a lot to learn. You could meet someone who wears a chapel veil and a long skirt, who is sleeping around the community but by God she has her devotions and says her rosary etc. you know nothing about a person just from their appearance.
@Linda Radcliff Keep in mind that she's an ex-feminist and convert. She probably got the tattoo a long time before her conversion and doesn't like it anymore.
You lose interest in what someone has to say simply because she has a tatto, based on a norm from the ceremonial law (that was already fulfiled by Christ); What an amazing example of superficial wrong judging.
How can someone's tattoo, choice of dress, hair color, or other superficial aspects invalidate her ideas? Just listen to what she has to say. You may discover something.