...A Marlene Dietrich quote which I found somewhat intriguing and provocative:
To be completely woman you need a master, and in him a compass for your life. You need a man you can look up to and respect. If you dethrone him it's no wonder that you are discontented, and discontented women are not loved for long.
I'll refrain from comment except to note that this sentiment is much closer to the truth of human nature than anything in feminism. That we've forgotten this, or something similar to it, factors into the increasingly strained, or, where not strained, utterly utilitarian (or is to say the latter merely to say the former more theoretically?), relations between the sexes. Neither men nor women understand who they are supposed to be, by nature.
Update: for those so inclined, here is the Wikipedia entry for Dietrich.
Comments (34)
I find it interesting how far back in feminism the indignant denial of anything like this quotation goes. Dorothy Sayers's version of feminism is light-years away from, and overwhelmingly preferable to, what goes under that name nowadays. But Sayers still would never acknowledge the full importance of the differences between the sexes and would have equated that quotation with utter abjectness. She demanded that the relations of the sexes be those of full equality, even in love, as though all relations were professional. So, Lord Peter reassures Harriet that he "prefers [his] music polyphonic." In other words, both voices making the music should be of the same kind.
Posted by Lydia | December 7, 2007 1:28 PM
Though it is to mix musical genres, while polyphonic music is glorious, harmonious music does require continuity, what was called in Baroque chamber music the continuo, as an integrative, organizing principle. You could call it the authoritative principle of the music, without which the melodic and thematic inventions would have been incoherent.
I'm all for a lot of openness and consultation, and so forth, in a marriage; but, while it might only seldom be approached, there must be a limiting principle - dialogue and discussion cannot continue indefinitely.
Posted by Maximos | December 7, 2007 1:43 PM
I happened to be reading the following in the course of an entirely different discussion this morning:
Posted by Zippy | December 7, 2007 2:07 PM
I printed out the Dietrich quote and showed it to my wife, who informed me that she was reasonably content in spite of her inability to look up to me. She then tore it into little pieces and told me I could eat it if I wished.
Since she is an avowed and quite deferential Papist, I will next show her the Pius quote. I'll get back to you.
Posted by William Luse | December 7, 2007 4:06 PM
It helps to be very short. You have to look up to _everybody_. :-)
Posted by Lydia | December 7, 2007 5:05 PM
Heh, the Tradition of the Church has been superceded by the writings of John Paul II, don't you know?
Posted by T. Chan | December 8, 2007 1:59 AM
No, we didn't. Thanks for cluing us in though.
Posted by William Luse | December 8, 2007 4:50 AM
Unfortunately there are many "orthodox" Catholics who seem to think so and put forward JP2's writings on this point as an "authentic development" of Tradition, even though their interpretation explicitly contradicts Tradition.
Posted by T. Chan | December 8, 2007 11:51 AM
...even though their interpretation explicitly contradicts Tradition.
You can try to make sense of what is taught, or you can try to make nonsense of it. It is up to you.
Posted by Zippy | December 8, 2007 1:45 PM
even though their interpretation explicitly contradicts Tradition.
Sounds almost ex cathedra, doesn't it?
Posted by William Luse | December 8, 2007 6:10 PM
Well, look, I'm one of the Orthodox around these parts, so perhaps I'm not expected to be conversant in such matters, but the whole "JPII innovated in the doctrine of the family" thing is a real baffler. I'm simply not seeing it.
But what do I know?
Posted by Maximos | December 8, 2007 10:41 PM
Maximos:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP820811.HTM
and
Mulieris Dignitatem
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
Posted by T. Chan | December 9, 2007 1:46 AM
(Specifically, his explanation of Ephesians 5:21-33.)
Posted by T. Chan | December 9, 2007 1:47 AM
Gee T. Chan, you are right, how offensive and against Tradition can JPII get:
Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination.
Oh the humanity!
Posted by Zippy | December 9, 2007 11:32 AM
Zippy: As I said before, it is the interpretation given to his words by some that is primarily the problem. They argue that:
There is mutual subjection between the spouses. --> Neither has authority over the other. (Or, both have authority equally over the other.)
Posted by T. Chan | December 9, 2007 12:34 PM
If your point is just that sometimes some people misinterpret documents, and sometimes they even do so willfully, well, that is pretty much a given. Welcome to humanity, have a nice day, share a little motherhood and apple pie. So what?
Your original comment was this:
Why didn't you say in your original comment "Heh, the Tradition of the Church has been superceded by willfull misinterpretation of the writings of John Paul II?"
The way you wrote it, you made it sound like you think JPII was a heresiarch. Do you?
Posted by Zippy | December 9, 2007 4:25 PM
Apparently the "heh" wasn't enough of a sarcasm tag. Maybe quotation marks wouldn't have helped either.
The next post should have sufficed as an explanation of what I was getting at.
Those who say that Tradition has been modified and superceded nonetheless appeal to some authority in order to be "orthodox."
If your point is just that sometimes some people misinterpret documents, and sometimes they even do so willfully, well, that is pretty much a given. Welcome to humanity, have a nice day, share a little motherhood and apple pie. So what?
If it's no interest of you, you don't have to waste your own time reading it and responding.
Posted by T. Chan | December 9, 2007 6:47 PM
(cont.)
Catholics do need to have a better understanding of Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, the authority of the pope, and the weight of papal documents--it's not simply that some people misinterpret documents, they are doing so with an exaggerated notion of papal authority--if the pope wrote it and it differs from Tradition, this new teaching must be correct and adopted by all. That sort of ultra-montanism is an obstacle to Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism.
While JP2's writings on Ephesians 5:21-33 can be interpreted so that they are in accordance with Tradition, I think one can disapprove of the wording of the texts, which rather easily lend themselves to being understood in a non-traditional, egalitarian manner.
Posted by T. Chan | December 9, 2007 6:57 PM
Ah. So you are criticising the Pope and his authority, not just neocaths who have misinterpreted him. Good luck with that.
I do find the whole pseudo-traditionalist more-Catholic-than-the-Pope trope rather boring, even though I do also agree with some of the criticisms of neo-Cath tendencies, including some ultramontane tendencies. Carry on then.
Posted by Zippy | December 9, 2007 8:34 PM
I do find the whole pseudo-traditionalist more-Catholic-than-the-Pope trope rather boring
And I find the failure to sever Sacred Tradition as for determining what falls under the infallible ordinary Magisterium to be disturbing.
Posted by T. Chan | December 10, 2007 12:20 AM
That should be:
And I find the failure to use Sacred Tradition as the standard for determining what falls under the infallible ordinary Magisterium to be disturbing.
Posted by T. Chan | December 10, 2007 12:21 AM
But what do I know?
More than some Catholics, evidently.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, your thread's in the process of being hijacked, but I'm rather enjoying some of it.
Posted by William Luse | December 10, 2007 3:35 AM
While JP2's writings on Ephesians 5:21-33 can be interpreted so that they are in accordance with Tradition, I think one can disapprove of the wording of the texts, which rather easily lend themselves to being understood in a non-traditional, egalitarian manner.
Being well into my second decade of practicing law, I have rarely (if ever) come across any writings that could not easily lend themselves to being understood in a manner anyone so desired.
PS The conventional sarcasm indicator I have seen used is " sarcastic comment ".
Posted by c matt | December 10, 2007 10:32 AM
That didn't quite work - it took them as real html tags.
I meant to display "" sarcastic comment ""
Posted by c matt | December 10, 2007 10:33 AM
still didn't work. Sorry T. Chen, you are on your own.
Posted by c matt | December 10, 2007 10:34 AM
If you want to display HTML tags explicitly in these comboxes, I think the way to do it is instead of the less than sign you type & lt; (but put the lt right next to the ampersand) and instead of the greater than sign you type & gt; (but put the gt right next to the ampersand) -- lets see if it works: <faketag>this is inside the fake tage</faketag>.
Here goes...
Posted by Zippy | December 10, 2007 2:41 PM
<s&rtsarcasm</s&rt
Posted by c matt | December 10, 2007 3:30 PM
<s>Zippy to the rescue</s>
Thanks Zip!
Posted by c matt | December 10, 2007 3:34 PM
<sarcasm>
will render as:
<sarcasm>
& will render as an ampersand (&) if you're trying to make examples for html entities.
Posted by todd | December 10, 2007 4:00 PM
That you take Marlene Dietrich as your example of the model Christian wife is quite funny.
Did you mean it to be? [sarcastic?]
From Marlene's Obit in the NYTimes. . .
She was assigned the part by Rudolph Sieber, a young Czechoslovak production assistant. They were married on May 17, 1924, and the next year had a daughter, Maria.
After the early years of their marriage, Mr. Sieber was rarely seen with his wife. He held movie jobs in New York and Hollywood and, in 1953, became a chicken farmer in California in the San Fernando Valley. They never divorced, but lived apart for most of their remaining years. He died in 1975.
Posted by Amused | December 10, 2007 6:58 PM
That you take Marlene Dietrich as your example of the model Christian wife is quite funny.
How is pointing out that Marlene Dietrich said something interesting and true equivalent to saying that she is the model Christian wife?
Posted by brendon | December 10, 2007 9:38 PM
Did you mean it to be?
It wasn't intended to be funny, inasmuch as I wouldn't be so daft as to posit Dietrich as an exemplification of Christian womanhood. I intended merely to praise the wisdom of one particular aphorism.
Posted by Maximos | December 10, 2007 10:08 PM
Thanks Todd, I was trying to remember '&'.
Posted by Zippy | December 10, 2007 11:05 PM
Perhaps it wasn't wisdom but sarcasm. Quite funny.
Perhaps you're anger and mysogyny is getting the better of you and clouding your capacity for logical discernment, boys.
Posted by still amused | December 12, 2007 11:48 PM