bishop williamson
#21
(09-10-2011, 06:14 PM)Iolanthe Wrote:
(09-10-2011, 06:11 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: A) Men do sacrifice everything (or are supposed to) -- up to and including their lives.  I think the bishop is referring to more day to day things -- such as the family arranging its schedule around the father's work and adjusting home life to the father's wishes.

B) This may have been a reference to college education.  Homeschooling costs very little.

C) He could be referring to public opinion and gossip -- ie don't bad mouth your husband and don't lord things over him.  Of course, he sees the tax statements, he knows how much money comes in.  However, it's one thing to, say, own property from prior to marriage that brings in a good income due to rent, and quite another to shout from the roof tops that your inheritance paid for that new car of your husband's.  :)

None of that is in the article. You've assumed all of that.

I said "could" and "may," not "is."  I agree, the article is a bit unclear about certain details, and it would also have been good to see the woman's letter (with names removed, of course).
Reply
#22
Bottom line, if he had made a real, actual point in his letter, nobody would need to rush in to supply all the extra, imagined details. His letter is pretty clearly a mix of waffling, brainwashing, and few good points thrown in so most people reading it don't realize that it has no substance.

It's important to understand what you're reading--this letter is a silly piece of fluff with no practical advice. Why am I the only one who gets angry that this kind of thing gets bandied around like it's saintly wisdom? Doesn't anyone else have standards?
Reply
#23
(09-10-2011, 06:33 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Bottom line, if he had made a real, actual point in his letter, nobody would need to rush in to supply all the extra, imagined details. His letter is pretty clearly a mix of waffling, brainwashing, and few good points thrown in so most people reading it don't realize that it has no substance.

It's important to understand what you're reading--this letter is a silly piece of fluff with no practical advice. Why am I the only one who gets angry that this kind of thing gets bandied around like it's saintly wisdom? Doesn't anyone else have standards?

Your objections contain a bunch of extra imagined details.

I don't want to hear HER practical advice, my situation is different, so whatever practical advice he gave her will be of no help to me or most of his readers. We don't know what else he may have said to her privately but I can see why he would not add that in his general commentary. What I need is the general truth and I can take that and tailor it to my own practical situation. Anyway, this is nothing new. You can get most if this even from secular behavioral studies.
Reply
#24
(09-10-2011, 06:48 PM)wallflower Wrote:
(09-10-2011, 06:33 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Bottom line, if he had made a real, actual point in his letter, nobody would need to rush in to supply all the extra, imagined details. His letter is pretty clearly a mix of waffling, brainwashing, and few good points thrown in so most people reading it don't realize that it has no substance.

It's important to understand what you're reading--this letter is a silly piece of fluff with no practical advice. Why am I the only one who gets angry that this kind of thing gets bandied around like it's saintly wisdom? Doesn't anyone else have standards?

Your objections contain a bunch of extra imagined details.

I don't want to hear HER practical advice, my situation is different, so whatever practical advice he gave her will be of no help to me or most of his readers. We don't know what else he may have said to her privately but I can see why he would not add that in his general commentary. What I need is the general truth and I can take that and tailor it to my own practical situation. Anyway, this is nothing new. You can get most if this even from secular behavioral studies.

I can see that, as well.  I suppose I'm just more used to the "Dear Abby" form of advice article, where both letters are shown.
Reply
#25
(09-10-2011, 06:48 PM)wallflower Wrote: ]
Your objections contain a bunch of extra imagined details.

Like what?

Quote:I don't want to hear HER practical advice, my situation is different, so whatever practical advice he gave her will be of no help to me or most of his readers. We don't know what else he may have said to her privately but I can see why he would not add that in his general commentary. What I need is the general truth and I can take that and tailor it to my own practical situation. Anyway, this is nothing new. You can get most if this even from secular behavioral studies.

The general advice that can be taken from the letter is that women should be fake with their husbands and be the one doing all the adapting. This is the same bad advice given by protestants. When I pointed out the problem with this, other people said, "He really meant that she should do those things while her husband is doing x, y, and z" only......he didn't say anything about what the husband should do. This is what I mean about people imagining their own details. His advice as it stands is problematic, not to mention scandalous.
Reply
#26
(09-10-2011, 07:33 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: The general advice that can be taken from the letter is that women should be fake with their husbands and be the one doing all the adapting.

Oh yeah. As if fighting in front of the kids is "keepin' it real."  That does a world of good. 

Quote:  This is the same bad advice given by protestants.

It's not bad advice at all.  You're just reading things into it that are not there.

Quote: When I pointed out the problem with this, other people said, "He really meant that she should do those things while her husband is doing x, y, and z" only......he didn't say anything about what the husband should do.

Why should he?  He explained in the beginning of the letter that it's advice to the wife. When the husband comes to him he'll have advice for him.  Listening to his separate interviews with Colleen Hammond and Dylan MacDonald, he had a complementary explanation for family dynamics for both of them. Why make demands on the letter that it doesn't claim to make?

Quote: This is what I mean about people imagining their own details. His advice as it stands is problematic, not to mention scandalous.

It is not. Most of the people understand exactly what the bishop is saying and they were interpreting what he said to the best of their ability for your benefit of understanding. 

You are more than free to quote the bishop directly and then make your own explanation and put that up for criticism rather than your ungrounded assertions and conclusions. 

I just reread the letter and "be fake" is not in there at all.  That must be your own detail you've added.

If I take your meaning and draw out the logical conclusion, I guess men shouldn't be "fake" with their families and they should cry in front of the children and lament how much they hate their lives and how disappointed they are with their families and careers and themselves and how they don't know what's going to happen in the future or if they will be able to handle anything. 

I guess any man who doesn't do that, is "being fake" with their wives.  To any man who behaves like that, good luck having a woman stick by your side acting like that, much less keeping a job down or running a business. 
Reply
#27
Gerard, do you have a link to the interviews with Colleen Hammond and Dylan MacDonald?  They sound very interesting.  :)
Reply
#28
(09-10-2011, 06:15 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(09-10-2011, 05:57 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: B. This woman said, "We don't have money to educate the kids." He responded, "Teach the girls to cook instead." What is this woman supposed to do now? Go home and not educate either her boys or her girls? Does this really seem like a good solution?

I think she was talking about higher education. Everyone gets basic education. That is not the question. Basic education is free up to high school for boys and girls. I think Bishop Williamson has no problem with basic education that is essential to everybody including girls.
Even the basic education done at home isn't free. You need texts, school supplies, and a certain amount of the classics. Worksheets and coloring pages can be had for free (assuming you have a printer), but for the most part, schoolbooks cost money. More than you might think, as the better they are, the more expensive they tend to be. Saxon Math for instance, favored by most Catholic homeschool programs: did you know that each year's homeschool curriculum is $100? Assuming you re-use the books for future children, that's still $1200 1-12 on math alone! I try and be as frugal as is possible with our homeschooling, but it doesn't come cheaply. I only wish it did!
Reply
#29
(09-10-2011, 08:02 PM)banksy Wrote:I think I would prefer to hear this kind of advice from Williamson's sister or mother or some wise old dame from his parish. 

These are the words of a broken man.  

Quote:  Unless you're drinking the kool-aid,  this kinda thing is not credible with intelligent people.  MIKEY

So I supposei it's a mark of intelligence to hear truth and reject it because it's not being stated by the "right kind of person"  in your estimation?  

That's the idea of someone who has already drunk deep of the Kool Aid.    
Reply
#30
(09-10-2011, 08:08 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Gerard, do you have a link to the interviews with Colleen Hammond and Dylan MacDonald?  They sound very interesting.  :)

Colleen Hammond used to have the mp3 of the interview right on her website.  People may want to write to her to put it back up. 

http://www.colleenhammond.com/uncategori...illiamson/

I'll look around to see if I can find the Dylan McDonald family cloister interview.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)