This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh...

This is so lovely. Isn't it ironic that while the discourse of preaching becomes more and more feminized, the deportment and dress of actual women becomes less and less feminine?

"I wouldn't want a painting of my wife that made her look like a box." But, Stephen, given the beauty of your wife, it would be the most lovely box around...

> This is so lovely. Isn't it ironic that while the discourse of preaching becomes more and more feminized, the deportment and dress of actual women becomes less and less feminine? Amen, Barbara! It was great to escape nauseating jeans and t-shirts (and much worse) for 2:52. > Notice how, as the paintings progress chronologically, the women become more and more inhuman. Stephen, I like realism in art, so I agree -- there is a degeneration as it goes along. But it is still important to note that classic female facial beauty can be simplified (and recognized) by just a few squiggles. Even the modern, boxy faces were not unisex-looking, like we are subjected to so often in real life. The very last sketch, for example, celebrates the glory in a woman's flowing locks, as did practically all. (In contrast, many Christian women hack all that off as being a bother.) > "I wouldn't want a painting of my wife that made her look like a box." Speaking of that, you don't see many beautiful paintings for sale of women dressed like women dress today. But classic paintings are of women dressed like they actually used to dress, with all the trimmings: hats, scarves, lace, bows, ribbons, flowers, satin, etc. Today's landscapes are quite drab by comparison. As much as I don't like them, a boxy feminine painting has the potential to be, sadly, superior to a realistic androgynous one. I'll take an impressionistic painting of my wife with a flower in her hair over a photo-realistic painting of her in a military combat helmet. Actually, I'd rather have the real thing with ribbons and flowers in her hair, more than a painting. --Michael

> [Fr. Bill] Did you notice the interplay -- really highlighted in this presentation -- of the women's coverings with their hair? Yes. Hard to miss that, Fr. Bill! But I'm biased. If only Paul'd had access to modern multi-media, huh? He used the naturally long hair as one of the rationals for advocating the veil. Today people want to make something so straightforward seem complicated, and can't even get the long hair part straight. > [Me] Actually, I'd rather have the real thing with ribbons and flowers in her hair, more than a painting. Sunday after church my wife was giving me the routine backyard tour of all her latest gardening efforts and plans. I nonchalantly picked a flower and stuck it in her hair over her ear, choosing a color that matched her dress, of course! That (pleasantly) surprised her. No sense letting a perfectly good flower go to waste on the bush like that, after all her hard work... --Michael