Sunday, January 5, 2014

This Caritas business, what it mean?

Happy New Year, everyone!

At Mass today, I was reminded that today is the feast of the Epiphany.
The priest said 'epiphany' means  a 'reveal' or a 'disclosure' and then launched into a long-winded explanation as to the relevance of this to the time around Jesus' birth when he was visited by the Three Wise men.

He lost me shortly after the gold, frankincense and myrrh bit...

Anyhow, I realise that I got me Three Wise men from the East on this very blog!

Yes I do!

Let's see...
I got me John Lord B3 from the East (of the world).
I got me Metak from the East (of Europe).

Um...who else?

If you are a man, and you live in the east of the world, or the east of your continent, or the east of your city, or the east of your street, or your bedroom in your house faces east, let me know and you will get the third 'Wise man' slot - no questions asked.

Hahahahahha!

One of our resident magi sent me this in the last post: This is an excerpt from another wise man commenting on a wise woman's actions.


"..So much in Augustina’s moving post.

Not many people can see the distinction between the types different types of love; conflating, love, lust and affection, yet the problem of love is at the core of our modern malaise.

Clearly, Augustina’s husband did not give her the “tingles” and yet she’s stuck with him through thick and thin, and despite his obvious faults. Indeed, his lack of alpha qualities put a strain on their marriage. Rollo? It wasn’t self interest there, it was concern for her husband.

A point of theological reflection. Does a husband’s failure to cultivate alpha qualities (executive function) put the marriage in danger of divorce? For a different post perhaps?

Secondly, the type of love that Augustina expressed for her husband is not the stuff that you can get from Game. That love, which goes by the theological name of Caritas, is something a person gives, independently of the quality of the other. It’s a supernatural gift from God. In looking for a wife, I’d advise my boys to look for a girl who posses this quality pretty much above all else. Sluts, hot sex and “wuv” come and go, but Caritas stays. Caritas loves you when you are unlovable and gameless.

Rollo Says that a woman can never love a man like he would want her to, but Augustina’s example(and lots of other women I know) proves him wrong. The love/caritas of a good woman is one of God’s gits to man. My wife does not give me everything I want, but it’s not because she doesn’t want to, it’s because she knows that its the wrong thing for me. It’s taken me many years to realise this and that’s why she’s a keeper. She’s looking after me.

That’s the paradox of a happy Christian marriage. The Christian wife, in order to be happy, has to know that her husband has real options but won’t exercise that ability because because her loves her. On the other hand, a good Christian wife can be miserable in a marriage yet still stick to her husband because she possesses Caritas.

God’s peace, Augustina.."


Further down that thread, someone else did what I love to do, which is to do a little philological research on the word 'Caritas'. This definitely brought out my geeky side :-)

I tried this in previous threads when I dissected the roots of the words 'mercy' and 'pity', and 'privacy' and 'intimacy'.
Bellita once alerted me to the relationship between 'curriculum' and the italian verb 'correre' (to run), as in 'curriculum vitae' being a 'run-through' of one's life.

My nerdy side is preparing to go to town on this one :-)

As the commenter downthread explained, 'Caritas' is etymologically related to the word 'charity', and also to the word 'care'.

But what does 'Caritas' mean in English, as related to the SMP?

True love?
Tough love?
Tingles?
Titillation?

Dunno.

There is a word I am familiar with, in another language, which I suspect means something very similar to 'Caritas'. As far as I can tell, it encompasses compassion, affection, tenderness, empathy and love.

From a purely religious viewpoint, the Catholic one to be precise, 'where there is Caritas (i.e. charity) and love, there is God' as the Taizé hymn goes:

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est:







The commenter was talking specifically about the kind of 'Caritas' that a woman can give to her husband, or that a woman can give to a man who is 'unlovable and gameless'.
Men too can be 'Caritas' givers, of course.

Or is male love a different thing from 'Caritas'?
Why do I get this sneaky feeling that 'Caritas' is more a feminine type of love?
Is there a good basis for this 'feeling' of mine?

What does this Caritas look like?

Is this 'self-giving', even 'selfless' love? As opposed to 'selfish' love?
Can it even be described as 'love'?

Can it be induced by Game? Or is it completely independent of both Boy Game and Girl Game?
If you are a man, and there was a choice between a woman being attracted to you, would you rather that, than her giving you 'Caritas' as 'Augustina's love for her husband seems to be?


What does 'Caritas' really mean?

Other than the examples given above in 'Wise man's' comment, could anyone give me good descriptions of 'Caritas'?

The more practical, the better! The more anecdotal, the better!

Grazie!














22 comments:

Bob Wallace said...

You might want to look at C.S. Lewis's "The Four Loves." He treats all of them extensively. I've written about them as well.

One of the big problems with the "Manophere" is the use - and rationalization of - goofy words like Alpha, Beta, etc. Dog terms do not go well with ancient wisdom about love and sex. And certainly not with Eros, which the Greeks pretty much considered the source of everything.

That's why I never use them.

Ceer said...

@ Bob

You're on about that again? You use those "dog terms" quite a lot for not liking them.

@ ST

Caritas is a Latin word from which we get our Charity. Consider this not in the contemporary, tax & spend sense, but the historical self-giving sense. St. Francis of Assisi comes to mind.

Here is as good an example as I can quickly find. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZoRE-YYRPU You may note that the caritas love is intertwined here with St. Francis' manly nature to protect. A man doesn't go up against a village terrorizing wolf armed only with his faith for no reason. That reason is the caritas type of love he has for those villagers.

To me, caritas is part of who you are as a human being because it flows from your soul, projected out to the world. In this way, it can be a part of practiced interactions with women (game) geared to show who you really are. That said, whether or not it's effective is up for debate. Although women in our culture respect strength more than virtue, a full take life by the horns, pray hard, live hard, live by your own rules style may meet with some success.

Bob Wallace said...

"You're on about that again? You use those "dog terms" quite a lot for not liking them."

Only to point out the fatal flaws in them.

metak said...

People like Augustina are rare nowadays. This is also one of the reasons why I read your blog, ST. Manosphere as such, is basically obsessed with worst women they can find and when they do find them, well it's another reason for parteeyyy!!! :-) (J. Erikson saga on Dalrock blog)

I know you won't believe me, but I actually learn a lot from your blog and from others commenting.

Why is there a 'war' on 'love'?? :-) Why can't it just be? Why suddenly this need to 'define' love based on sex and then fight over it like little kids???
The same thing some stupid parents do when they put their child in worst position and ask them "Who do love more, mommy or daddy?". Of course there's also some kind of bribe involved, usually candy. :-)

Happy New Year, everyone!

John Lord B3 said...

Hello ST,

Thank you for this new, thought-provoking article.

When I read your article, about Caritas, which is came from the same root word of Charity,

I can't help but to recall your earlier article,

http://thesanctuary-spacetraveller.blogspot.ch/2012/10/whats-woman-for.html

where as you stated:

"..The last F is self-explanatory.

But why do so many fail at this....er... marital obligation? Including all that comes before - such as simply being attractive to the one who matters?
There has to be a universal reason.
I don't think 'life got in the way' is an acceptable answer.
There has to be a better answer than that.
I would love to hear it.

Now, I ask this particular question specifically with the woman who had no problem complying before commitment, in mind.
What happened?
Why is this scenario so common?


If a woman cannot provide each of, at least some of the above, is a man to be blamed if he doesn't take her on?
Manosphere men are trained to think, on encountering a woman: 'What does she bring to the table?'

That is the same question as 'What is a woman for', no?.."

Pertaining to the quote I gave, I'd like to hear your opinion.. where is the place for "Caritas" in the realm of "Martial Obligation", because I am sure most men want their woman to give them "the other F" because they enthusiastically need it as much as them, not because of "being charitable"...(and vice versa off course)

I am not a Catholic, so maybe you could enlighten me, what does the RCC says about wives who dislikes to give their husbands "the other F" or vice versa? Surely they have some kind of "reconciliatory" measures?

I look forward to your further correspondence!

Best Regards, JLB3

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bob,

Thank you Bob! I am thrilled to say, I found a free copy of this, and I have already started reading it :-)

I was only familiar with CS Lewis' 'the lion, the witch and the wardrobe', so this is a new direction in terms of his works for me :-)

Much appreciated. I shall come back and reflect on what I have read both on that pdf and what I can find on your blog later.

I do know you don't like those 'dog terms' as you put it, Bob.

But those 'dog terms' are incredibly helpful for us mere mortals who are trying to negotiate life in the modern SMP. I think that's what Ceer is getting at. Anything that helps men (who have been severely disadvantaged in an area of life that is actually a rather big part of life) has got to be a good thing. I don't begrudge anyone the use of Game (man or woman), as long as it is with good intentions.

But even those who don't start out with good intentions find themselves with a good thing in the end.

How many people set out using 'Game' to look for just sex and end up with a wife or husband?

Can't knock a gift horse in the mouth...

:-)



Ceer,

You describe beautifully what male 'caritas' may look like. I take back my flawed logic that 'caritas' may be a female thing. You have thoroughly convinced me...

Thank you for that clip. In italiano, no less! Bonus grazie for that!

St. Francis is my mother's favourite saint, and one reason she raves about our present pope :-)


Metak,

I agree with you that Augustina is indeed a very rare woman. Whilst there may be many like her who try, I do think she takes the prize hands down!

Isn't it interesting that all that's good about women (Augustina) and all that's bad about women (Jenny Erikson) have been profiled on Dalrock's blog lately? Dalrock's blog is fast becoming a case study on womanhood! You guys should be reading his blog everyday. Even I, as a non-man (LOL) find it useful.

And no, I don't believe you for one minute that you learn anything from crazy old me, Metak :-) From everyone else who comments, yes, of course! So do I!

It's the other way round - Metak - remember you are now an official Wise Man at The Sanctuary!



JLB3,

Your question does not really need a Catholic answer, I think. But you specifically asked for one, so I shall try and answer it froma purely Catholic point of view, as best as I can, from what I know about Catholic teaching.

I have to say that from what I know, the Catholic Church takes this subject very seriously.

So much so that if a man or woman makes the complaint that they are being willfully denied sex within a marriage, and especially if that marriage has not been 'consummated', that is grounds for anulling that marriage. That means, the Church considers that marriage not to have existed at all. THAT is how seriously the Church takes it.

I think it is in 1st Corinthians 7 somewhere that St. Paul says that if one spouse denies the other the gift of 'self' - in this regard, of 'physical' self, they risk the other party seeking someone else's 'physical self'. This is not a joke, because the other party is being induced to sin, and The Church takes a rather dim view of this. In this sense, the one who induces the other to sin is worse off in God's eyes than the one who actually sins (by being unfaithful).

So I am rather sensitive to men who say that their wives deny them sex within marriage, for no apparent reason. It is morally disgusting. This is why I disagree with Lysistrata's actions. Because she was a MARIIED woman.

Does this answer your question?

Spacetraveller said...

In a secular sense, every sensible woman knows that men are in it (marriage) for the sex the same way as women are in it for the security :-)

It is a fair enough trade. No woman should expect the security if she is unwilling to provide the sex, to be blunt about it. This is common sense, no?

I don't even think this has anything to do with caritas, per se, although I could concede if a good enough case for a connection between the two were made. It is just normal physiology, I think.


John Lord B3 said...

Hello ST,

Thank you for the detailed response, now I understand more clearly the position of the RCC in this matter, and I respect their position.

The reason I asked, is because I used to hang out in a public forum about marriage, and a there are lots and lots of men and also a few women there, suffering from sexless marriages.

Also, you said:

"..In a secular sense, every sensible woman knows that men are in it (marriage) for the sex the same way as women are in it for the security

It is a fair enough trade. No woman should expect the security if she is unwilling to provide the sex, to be blunt about it. This is common sense, no?
.."

Yes, it is common sense, and I have no doubt that you ST, is a woman with a head full of common sense and a heart of gold, but I am under the impression that a number of women (thankfully not a majority) does not share your attitude..check this:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/11/30/sex-marriage/

So, I was under the impressions that denying sex is normal and/or common in the West, as (CMIIW) you have anti-marital-rape laws, but no "duty to give sexual pleasure to spouse" laws.

You said "..So I am rather sensitive to men who say that their wives deny them sex within marriage, for no apparent reason. It is morally disgusting.."

Yes, and vice versa, I know some men who put so much attention on his career that they often put business at higher importance than quality time with their wives.

So, do you have any good analysis on how to educate the masses about the role of good sexual life for married couples? I'd love to hear your ideas.

Best Regards, JLB3

Spacetraveller said...

JLB3,

Thanks for your very generous words...!

Um, sex within marriage is not 'optional', I don't think. The paradox is, I don't think it must be seen as a 'duty' either!

Oh how this life is so choc-a-bloc with paradoxes :-)

"So, I was under the impressions that denying sex is normal and/or common in the West..."
Common, yes, but not normal, surely!

"So, do you have any good analysis on how to educate the masses about the role of good sexual life for married couples?"

Oh JLB3, I wish I had!
I am afraid I don't really know...

The Catholic Church insists on pre-marital courses before they will allow anyone to marry. That's a tremendous idea, but I suspect this is no use to you.

I personally am no fan of secular 'couples therapy'. From what I have heard, they are laced with feminist ideology, which may be harmful to marriage. So I am afraid I am biased towards 'religious' ones. But even those ones may be suspect!
*sigh*

The best idea I can think of, is to find a trusted older person of the same sex as the 'offender', so if for example, it is a woman denying her husband what is a reasonable request (request for sex, and she is not physically incapable of it), then asking an older married woman to speak some sense to her may work.

If it is the man who is the offender, I am however not sure if asking an older man to speak to him will work! In this case, do you have any ideas?
Sorry to turn this back on you!
:-)

It's a difficult one. I imagine it is a rare man who has to be persuaded to um, get friendly with the wife, no?

All of the above, of course can only help individuals...
The masses?

TV ads?
Poster ad campaigns?
'Marital studies' at school (compulsory course) for teenagers?

Hm...not sure!

John Lord B3 said...

Hello ST,

Your idea, of asking the elders to guide the youngsters, is easy to implement (and already being implemented by tradition) in backwards countries such as mine. Because we are still operating in the "clan" or "large family" concepts. Not sure how it will be implemented in more advanced Western countries, which operates in different concept (Western people seems to be more about individual progress, not clan loyalties).

I agree with your basic idea that sexual relations within marriage shouldn't be an "optional" thing.. My logical thinking is this: because if you don't _want_ to have sex with your spouse, then why bother marrying?

You said "..The paradox is, I don't think it must be seen as a 'duty' either!.."

Now, I don't quite get the idea, so could you please elaborate?

My best take is that duties are duties. Including Marital "duties" which are many, such as providing for the family, taking care of the children, making spouses happy and content. ANd so, Without joyful acceptance of duties, then we don't have a marriage, but what we have is a state-sanctioned legal relation whose duties we picks and chooses as we please.

Anyway, I am very much awaiting for your continuing correspondence. Thank you for this wonderful discussion!

Best Regards, JLB3

Spacetraveller said...

JLB3,

Backward country?
I politely disagree!

Yes, in the West, there is a big problem of lack of 'elder' involvement in the young 'uns' business. What a shame (although I understand how we got here).

But I still think that if a particular 'elder' can be recruited by one or both parties, then there isn't the problem of that elder feeling that they are poking their nose into where it doesn't belong, because afterall, they have been 'nominated' for the task of 'adjudication'.
The young persons have their marital issues sorted out, the elder feels useful, everybody is happy :-)

I agree with your thinking: If marital relations are off the table, why bother marry?
Indeed!

I don't think 'marital relations' should be a 'duty', in the sense that this attitude will be sure to make the other person feel as if one has to force themselves to do something with them which should normally be a natural reflex with someone with whom one has a (presumably) physical attraction.

Making it a 'duty' would surely reduce it to a 'chore' of some kind, thereby removing all notion of beauty/enjoyment, etc., no?

I imagine it would be hell for the other person denied...

I agree with you that all the other 'duties' of marriage - childrearing, resource provision, cooking, etc. should all be done witn a joyous disposition. But the one which really should be LEAST like a chore is this specific one which is at the very core of marriage...

Anyone else have anything to say on this matter?

Any 'elders'? The Sanctuary needs YOU!
(Imagine Uncle Sam pointy finger).

:-)



This Old Man said...

Caritas is the love that will not be rebuked and will not be gainsaid. It is the love beyond measure and without restraint. It is the love that is not interested. It is the love for you because you are you, a child of God. I it is not the love for you that is because you are pretty, or generous, or clever, or witty, or kind or because you cook excellent dinners. It does not love you because of what you could do for someone or that someone could do with you or because you are related, or similar, or share the same taste in music, or books, or food, or movies or anything else. It loves you simply because you are. Not because you are you but, because you are.

It is the love which cannot be betrayed, which cannot be disappointed, which does not demand loyalty, or reciprocity or even acknowledgment. It is the love from which we cannot be persuaded or shamed, or embarrassed by or anything that could diminish its steadfastness or its might. It is the love Christ has for his Church and that which we are called to have for one another:

4 Caritas patiens est, benigna est. Caritas non æmulatur, non agit perperam, non inflatur,
5 non est ambitiosa, non quærit quæ sua sunt, non irritatur, non cogitat malum,
6 non gaudet super iniquitate, congaudet autem veritati:
7 omnia suffert, omnia credit, omnia sperat, omnia sustinet.
8 Caritas numquam excidit: sive prophetiæ evacuabuntur, sive linguæ cessabunt, sive scientia destruetur…

13 Nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas, tria hæc: major autem horum est caritas.

1st Corinthian’s, 13


How does Caritas fit in the SMP? Well, “the SMP” is a metaphor, and a rather weak one at that, but, as described in this and other blogs, it is a temple to selfishness, so I don’t think Caritas fits in there at all. After reading about this SMP for a while, the term triggers in me the image of a gigantic pick-up bar to which men and women attend every night with the purpose of seeing what advantage they can take of each other, a place where people give as little as they can get away with and take as much as they can manage to, devising clever strategies and subterfuges to best misrepresent themselves to better garner whatever profit they seek. So no, not a place that would welcome Caritas or Philios but a place where only Eros (in its classical form not C.S. Lewis’ exalted one of Philos within Eros, rather Lewis’ Venus within Eros), is allowed at all.

“Rollo says that a woman can never love a man like he would want her to”

I would have no idea how Rollo wants to be loved or what kind of women he knows but there is this:

I have known my share of women who could have left and yet stuck around for husbands who were disabled by heart disease, or dementia, or Parkinson’s, or cancer, or stroke or COPD. Men who no longer could take care of themselves, never mind taking the leadership position or being alpha or, whatever. Men who needed to be wheeled around in wheel chairs, and fed and dressed and cleaned and minded as if they were infants. Men who were more subjects of compassion than awe, of pity than lust. Men who were not longer capable of impressing anybody, if they ever were in an earlier life. In short, the kind of man that your silly theory of hypergamy would demand that they be abandoned instantly. Yet these women have stuck around doing the hard and unceasing labor of caretaking these men that they loved once and still do, these men to whom they promised once, a lifetime ago, “in sickness and in health.”

Once again, I have no clue what kind of love Rollo wants for himself but, if I had to choose, I would choose for myself the kind I described just above, for, in the final analysis, it is not so important that we get the love we want but that we get the love we need.

Spacetraveller said...

TOM,

Thank you for a wonderful picture of Caritas!

It is indeed beautiful.

These women you mention are truly Christ-like indeed, I agree. They are like Augustina.

May I ask you a question? It sounds like 'Caritas' is built over time, perhaps during the course of a long marriage.
Is this right?

Is it actually plausible to have this kind of love for someone one doesn't know well?


What I was referring to in my 'hypergamy' post was 'Eros', yes, not 'Caritas' and is a more 'basic' kind of love, or as some would describe it, 'female attraction'. I personally think it is a driving force in most 'romantic' relationships. And I think this is indeed present (at least at the start, lol) in the longterm, successful marriages I have seen. By no means a scientific study, but my anecdotal evidence is good enough for me.

I also think that this leads on very nicely to 'Caritas' in the longterm, as long as the usual difficulties of life/marriage are overcome as time goes on.

Yes, women like Augustina have done well without it, but can all or most women? (I doubt it). And indeed, would men prefer that kind of 'pity' love from a woman rather than one that somehow compels her to love him from a kind of primordial point of view (one which she will report as 'it just happened') rather than one bourne out of 'duty'?

You say you would pick 'Caritas' anyday. I see where you are coming from!

But would you want this from the get-go in a relationship with a woman? Is this even possible??

I am keen to hear your view on this...





PVW said...

I love ubi caritas; we sing it on occasion during the offertory, especially just prior to communion. Caritas as charity? Charity, in our dealings at church, in graciousness? My favorite version of ubi caritas is by Paul Halley, I think I have it somewhere, but here is a good you tube of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBS6gv5TkUg

PVW said...

As for ubi caritas and charity, I think of it in dating and marriage: always being charitable and loving with one's spouse, consideration, a sense of devotion and sacrality. For example, refusing to gossip about one's spouse.

John Lord B3 said...

Hello ST,

Now, this below is an example of NON-caritas I think :D


http://weaselzippers.us/wendy-davis-divorced-husband-day-after-he-finished-paying-off-her-student-loans/

As long as women could get away very easily with these kind of behavior (in some cases even with the possibility of being AWARDED with alimony), then I think your caritas will not be as common as you'd like them to be.

I think a large percentage of women are capable of caritas, but what if there is a common perception, backed by the laws, that being un-caritas are more rewarding?

Surely will not encourage them to become more caritas!

I'd love to hear your thoughts about this matter!

Spacetraveller said...

Bob,

Thank you - I read 'The Four Loves' by CS Lewis. Excellent read! Thank you for recommending it. Next stop, your blog, to see what you make of 'Caritas'.
:-)

PVW,

Beautiful...

I agree with you that gossiping about a spouse (or anyone else for that matter) is certainly not loving.
This is a female crime, in general.
I wonder if it directly leads to divorce? Perhaps a simple thing like this is a big culprit in separations and divorce.

Thanks for warning against this.

JLB3,

Oh Good Lord, if there was ever a good example of un-Caritas, this is it!
How unfortunate for this man who did a very loving thing for her (example of male Caritas, I should think!) and THIS is how he is repaid?

Honestly, JLB3 I really don't think there are many women in the world who would be so unapologetically brazen. I really don't. I am sure many men would disagree with me (and of course I respect their experiences with particularly nasty women) but I am sure this example is far out on the Gaussian distribution.
I would even venture as far as theorising as to whether she has some sort of personality disorder??

Our modern world encourages women to cheat men, and so (weak) women do (cheat men).
The challenge is to be strong and say 'no' to the easy options.
We should 'woman up' and do the right thing by men even if we are being tempted by the snake.

If so many wonderful women that I know can, why can't the rest of us?



PVW said...

@ST: PVW,

Beautiful...

Me: Yes, I recall hearing that type of church music "back in the day" at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the headquarters of the Episcopal Diocese of New York. The group was in residence there, and might still be--the Paul Winter Consort, with whom Paul Halley performed.

ST: I agree with you that gossiping about a spouse (or anyone else for that matter) is certainly not loving.
This is a female crime, in general.
I wonder if it directly leads to divorce? Perhaps a simple thing like this is a big culprit in separations and divorce.

Thanks for warning against this.

Me: Oh, without question, it can. If anything, what I have seen is a toxicity of herd behavior, where women get into the nasty habit of dredging up stories from their marriage in order to get validation (and a ready support group) from other women about their struggles with their husbands, real or imagined.

There are women who grow up seeing their mothers do this, and the mothers might have even brought them in as an ally against daddy.

So they do the same when they get older and marry: the need men for marriage and children, but they sure as hell don't trust them, are very suspicious as a result and harbor them in contempt.

I think newly married women have to be wary of this social dynamic in their families, because it can begin fairly early, as the female relatives want to know (and quite legitimately) how the marriage is going.

If there are any matters to be resolved, they should be resolved with their husbands in private, thus avoiding the whole gossip thing.

Of course, I think there are men who can use some caritas too, for example, the male equivalent of the man gossiping about his wife to others.

Spacetraveller said...

PVW,

Yes, you are so right!
Again, merci.

I am not so sure men gossip to other men about their wives.

Any men here guilty of this?
(We won't tell on you :-)

John Lord B3 said...

Hello ST!

You said:

"..JLB3,

(snip)Our modern world encourages women to cheat men, and so (weak) women do (cheat men).

The challenge is to be strong and say 'no' to the easy options.

We should 'woman up' and do the right thing by men even if we are being tempted by the snake.

If so many wonderful women that I know can, why can't the rest of us?
.."

Indeed, those are noble and correct actions.. but what incentives are for modern women to "woman up and to the right thing"?

The Snake are strong these days! And love often are not enough. Except for those who has strong caritas.

What could make Western women to be sympathetic to the plight of Western men nowadays, if the message they are hearing daily are painting men to an unfavorable light? ("men are rapists", "men are oppressing women", "don't trust men", "this is a men's world", "women need men like fishes need bycycles", etc)

Perhaps teaching women to have more "Caritas" is an answer, but how to promote and cultivate Caritas?

Some things to think about during the weekend!

Have a nice weekend ST!

John

Spacetraveller said...

JLB3,

The incentive NOT to cheat a man when everyone and everything says you should?

Self-respect. That's it.

More and more, I see frivorcees who are sinking ever more deeply into depression, low self-esteem issues, frank psychiatric problems...

A la base, I wonder how much of all this is to do with a life led in the wrong path, capped with 'cash and prizes' that is not filling the hole it was designed to fill?

(Please note that I am talking here of women who were truly wrong to break their vows - I am not commenting at all about those who for one reason or another had a legitimate reason to do so - not that I can ever class myself as a divorce apologist).

Can these women look themselves in the mirror of a morning?

I suspect not!
All these endless 'issues' may be female rationalisations of 'I just cannot look at my own face in the mirror anymore'.

With the loss of shame, we also lost self respect in society.

And yet we expect, indeed, demand the respect of others.

I fear that unless we regain our self-respect, we are in danger of falling deeper and deeper into the rabbit-hole.

We cannot love others (caritas-love, at least) unless we respect them on some level.
We cannot respect anyone else unless we respect ourselves first.
Voila.


John Lord B3 said...

Dear ST,

It's been a while since we had a discussion, glad I am back here!

You said,

"..With the loss of shame, we also lost self respect in society.

And yet we expect, indeed, demand the respect of others.

I fear that unless we regain our self-respect, we are in danger of falling deeper and deeper into the rabbit-hole.

We cannot love others (caritas-love, at least) unless we respect them on some level.
We cannot respect anyone else unless we respect ourselves first.
Voila.."

This is spot-on correct, I believe. Thumbs up! Logical, makes sense, not only for religious people like us but maybe also for secular people (if they still understands the concept of shame and self-respect).

Great advice ST! I hope more people realizes this.

Best Regards,

JLB3