Where have all the Cowboys Gone?

[Mark]

I doubt it is just me, but it seems that every where I look nowadays all I see is emasculated men walking around. Whether they espouse the title "metrosexual" or simply homosexual, the chances of coming across a male under the age of 35 behaving or dressing in serious and masculine manner is becoming a rare site and I have to admit, because it is getting next to impossible, I have stopped trying to discern who is gay and who is not. Being a college student on campus it is something which is practically endemic in males who are either on this side of the spectrum or completely on the other side (super dooper jock!). Most troubling to me though is the fact this breed of males must be exercising terrible effects in the minds of young children who see them around them and on TV and think this is the norm. What do you all think we can do as lay people about this?

You've yet to see the whole rest of the country, like the western-midwest, here it's an extreme rarity to see anything less than quite masculine, yet polite men.

[Catholicdad]

Right. The highest Saint in heaven, the one who receives hyperdulia, is the Blessed Virgin - a woman.

While a woman may merit more for herself on earth, her nature is not equal to that of a man.

What was it Knute Rockne said?

There is actually, scriptural evidence for what you are saying here.  However, this concept offends many.

I agree, men and women have different "natures" and it's true also, that a "woman's nature" is not equal to that of a man, it is a "greater truth" that a woman's nature is not of "less value" than a man's.

Hopefully, these are the "peace words" for which this thread is looking.

 - Dad

[Catholicdad]

Original comment and quote withdrawn.

This thread--WOW--what a bit of "snippiness" has crept up.

Interesting.

I don't think the perceived offensive poster is a misogynist.  Then again, it's doubtful that a woman of quality with the qualities he seeks will be found in Western Civilization.

 - Dad

[ErinIsNotNice]

I think Carole is just objecting to the term you used.

Yeah, apparently so, LOL. I was simply trying to get across the fact that my husband doesn't try to micromanage our household, in the same way that I don't try to micromanage his career. We trust each other in our different spheres, and it's a far cry from the situation that donumabdeo describes as his ideal.

Backseat, riding shotgun, sharing the front seat .... whatever term floats your boat.

Really not trying to start a fight, but why do YOU "manage" the household and HE "micromanages" his career?

Interesting?

 - Dad

Look again-- she uses the word "micromanage" both times.

[Catholicdad]

I think Carole is just objecting to the term you used.

Yeah, apparently so, LOL. I was simply trying to get across the fact that my husband doesn't try to micromanage our household, in the same way that I don't try to micromanage his career. We trust each other in our different spheres, and it's a far cry from the situation that donumabdeo describes as his ideal.

Backseat, riding shotgun, sharing the front seat .... whatever term floats your boat.

Really not trying to start a fight, but why do YOU "manage" the household and HE "micromanages" his career?

Interesting?

- Dad

Look again-- she uses the word "micromanage" both times.

I was correcting the post when you posted--and thank you for the correction.

 - Dad

[donumabdeo]

I agree, men and women have different "natures" and it's true also, that a "woman's nature" is not equal to that of a man, it is a "greater truth" that a woman's nature is not of "less value" than a man's.

Your two propositions are irreconcilable.  One nature must be a higher good than the other, thus one is more valuable than the other. To say man's nature is infinitely valuable is to attempt to equate man with God. 

[SweetPea]

I agree, men and women have different "natures" and it's true also, that a "woman's nature" is not equal to that of a man, it is a "greater truth" that a woman's nature is not of "less value" than a man's.

Your two propositions are irreconcilable. One nature must be a higher good than the other, thus one is more valuable than the other. To say man's nature is infinitely valuable is to attempt to equate man with God. 

What now Dad?  Looks like you were wrong in your assessment.  The OP apparently doesn't like to disappoint.

[Catholicmilkman]

Your two propositions are irreconcilable. One nature must be a higher good than the other, thus one is more valuable than the other. To say man's nature is infinitely valuable is to attempt to equate man with God.

And where does Christ's Incarnation come in this? Is Christ not infinite? Human nature is finite, yes, but sanctifying grace is infinite and both men and women both being human can obtain it from God. Men and women have the same nature. Their accidentals are different though just as every man's are.

[TradCatholicGal]

.

[CaroleK]

I think what our young friend has either not yet learned, or is ignoring, is that there are differences between men and women.  Intrinsic.  Basic.  Undeniable.  Important.  And most of all, divinely ordained differences.  BUT that we are complementary.  One completes the other.  I am strong where my husband is weak and vice versa.  We can each do things that the other cannot.  And we each do some things that other can, but we do it better.

Those differences are something to celebrate and be thankful for.

But they are do not denote a disparity in intrinsic worth. 

Someday, when our young friend has grown up a bit (and perhaps met a young lady who changes his mind about not wanting to hear anything but platitudes fall from her lips) he may begin to realize that woman and men are different but that doesn't make one "better" than the other.