I know …

I know what that almond tree
cannot, its sprigs already heady
with blossom so far from spring:
that soon we plan to cut it down
however heavy it might be laden, 
like a man or woman in the midst
of life, with fruit still to be borne.

(Julian O’Dea)

How to make a moue

My wife apparently teaching my daughter to “make a moue” (a French woman’s pout) in 1990.

20160828_201130

Hillary makes common, ignorant, vocabulary error

Listen to Hillary here referring to the Alt-Right. She says “tenants” when she means “tenets”. A common, ignorant mistake.

 

The Littleness of Women

The Thinking Housewife discusses the importance of remaining childlike in life. She cites St Therese of Lisieux: “It is truly sweet to feel weak and little.”

Professor Marie George writes in her article, What Aquinas Really Said About Women: “In our discussions of the differences between the sexes, we must avoid yielding to impulses of envy, but strive rather to love whatever littleness we may have due to our sex, as God loves it.”

And as a woman blogger and wife wrote at a guest post on this blog: “And this is true, women are not children; they are not men either.”

It seems to me that many of the problems between the sexes today arise from women forgetting their littleness.

Oddly, this issue has more than just philosophical interest. It is at the forefront of the recent attack by Hillary on the “Alt-Right” and the concept of hierarchies, as discussed by Steve Sailer here: “They also believe in sexual hierarchies.”

Pretty much everybody believed in a sexual hierarchy until a few years ago.

Carolyn Farina: recent news on the actress

Here is some discussion on the actress at the IMDb site.

It appears she will be in a film next year, 2017, “South of Hope Street“, directed by Jane Spencer. Carolyn Farina has appeared previously in a film with this director, “Little Noises”, although she had no lines, at least in the version of the movie I have seen. (She appears in the background in one scene, and in the credits with her first name misspelled.)

She is currently working in the New York school system as a psychologist. Here is her LinkedIn profile.

As some of the discussion at the IMDb site suggests, her career is puzzling. Why, despite her performance in Metropolitan (1990) and her small but competent role in Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence (1993), did her career not prosper?

I have written about this in my Amazon kindle book.

510sGxXHy1L

One remark I found interesting at the IMDb discussion was that Carolyn Farina had an air of vulnerability about her like Molly Ringwald in The Breakfast Club (1985). As I have written elsewhere, both were pretty young women portrayed positively as virginal ingenues.

There is also some discussion of her accent. She is from Queens, but her accent in Metropolitan sounds appropriate to her more upper class character. There are stories that she had to work on this. And certainly in her cameo as a waitress in “Damsels in Distress” (2011) she sounded more working class. Nonetheless, in her more recent interviews, including those associated with the recent 25th anniversary of the release of Metropolitan, her accent is not unlike that she used in Metropolitan and The Age of Innocence. At least to my Australian ears.

 

Carolyn Farina in a nightmare sequence in the film Metropolitan

I have just found these images from Metropolitan  (1990). The actress playing Audrey Rouget appears in a kind of nightmare in the male lead’s imagination in the arms of the evil Rick.

The pretty actress appears undressed but only to her slip twice in the movie, including during this sequence. So, it is a modest movie in that respect.

tumblr_o98zj7LDFs1qmemvwo1_400

 

tumblr_nrxwj9QqW71u1bbopo4_r1_500-1

She was a good actress, Carolyn Farina, but sultry and sexy was not really her thing. She reminded me of Elizabeth McGovern trying to do erotic. Some actresses are too wholesome looking for that kind of scene.

Any excuse to ignore scripture on women

I just came across this discussion on Facebook. It is incredible the weak arguments people come up with to ignore the words of Paul on women preaching or teaching in the assembly.

First the main post, which quoted John Wesley:

 

” John Wesley on women preaching:

You ask me, “Is there any difference between Quakerism and Christianity?” I think there is. What that difference is, I will tell you as plainly as I can. I will first set down the account of Quakerism (so called) which is given by Robert Barclay: and then add, wherein it agrees with, and wherein it differs from, Christianity.

[…]

“We judge it no ways unlawful, for a woman to preach in the assemblies of God’s people.”

In this there is a manifest difference. For the Apostle Paul saith expressly, ‘Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.’ 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.

Robert Barclay indeed says, ‘Paul here only reproves the inconsiderate and talkative women.’ But the text says no such thing. It evidently speaks of women in general.

Again, the Apostle Paul saith to Timothy, ‘Let your women learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, (which public teaching necessarily implies,) but to be in silence.’ (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.)

To this Robert Barclay makes only that harmless reply; ‘We think this is not any ways repugnant to this doctrine.’ Not repugnant to this, ‘I do not suffer a woman to teach?’ Then I know not what is.

“But a woman laboured with Paul in the work of the gospel.” Yea! But not in the way he had himself expressly forbidden.

But Joel foretold, ‘Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’ And ‘Philip had four daughters which prophesied.’ And the Apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their ‘heads covered.’ Very good. But how do you prove that prophesying in any of these places means preaching?” “

 

And now, somebody wrote this response to the above:

Wasnt paul reffering to the temple prostitutes that was attending the church in corinth and he was addressing the manner in which all women should consider behaving so that no one on the outside could judge? So paul was trying to apply grace to the situation of that church not all churches? “

 

To which I responded:

If they were prostitutes, why did they have husbands?

“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” “

 

[The pre-eminent Catholic theologian, St Thomas Aquinas wrote:

“Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. – Thomas Aquinas (ST II-II, Q 177, A 2, co.)”]

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 274 other followers