Catholics Trapped by Feminism

[57thDimension]

All right, I will bite and write up a piece opposing the article, but first I must ask which article in particular you wish me to address, the one you pointed out in this post? or the related one pointed to in the beginning of this thread?

Excellent, I appreciate it.

Well, addressing both articles would be fine, but the “6 Reasons” article is the one I address in another thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823388. I would certainly recommend reading through that thread first.

Also, please publish it off of CAF, though, in order to not stifle discussion. Thanks.

 

[EasterJoy]

Where is your argument? (Registering dislike is not an argument.)

I definitely recommend reading through this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823388 (It’s a bit long, by the way)

Oh, that closed thread, yes. Now that you mention it, I posed a question to you twice, and I don’t think you ever answered:

Post 288: Let’s cut to the chase, sir.

Imagine I’m your daughter, the recently-graduated valedictorian at the local Catholic high school, at which you serve as a member of the school board. Tell me why my female classmates and I, especially those of us who completed our educations at the top of our college prep high school class, were supposed to stay home and marry–who? one of the few neighbors that are not one of our cousins?–instead of going to college.

Post 303: *Your future daughter still wants to hear what you have to say, 57th Dimension. I have worked hard all through high school. I can choose my school, and will probably even get academic scholarships, although probably not enough to pay for the entire bill.

Do I get to follow my brothers to college? *

Did I miss your answer? If I did, please repeat it. If I did not, by all means answer now.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Since when am I supposed to teach you logic?

Either you think that I intend to keep making strawmans out of this gentleman’s argument. In which case, why did you bother replying to me?

Or you think that I accidentally strawmanned the gentleman’s argument. In which case, why did you not correct the strawman?

So you see, either way, your behavior didn’t make any sense unless you’re purposefully trying to prevent a meaningful discussion. Incidentally, I believe that is exactly what you are trying to do.

 

[RPRPsych]

Oh, that closed thread, yes. Now that you mention it, I posed a question to you twice, and I don’t think you ever answered:

Post 288: Let’s cut to the chase, sir.

Imagine I’m your daughter, the recently-graduated valedictorian at the local Catholic high school, at which you serve as a member of the school board. Tell me why my female classmates and I, especially those of us who completed our educations at the top of our college prep high school class, were supposed to stay home and marry–who? one of the few neighbors that are not one of our cousins?–instead of going to college.

It gets better. If you get married, you’re not supposed to enjoy marital relations, because that’s a mortal sin (and Aquinas, who disagrees with 57D, was wrong on this.) And “every wife is a prostitute”. Why? Because the Gnostic heretic Tatian says so, and 57D considers him more authoritative than Paul VI or John Paul II.

What was that Proverb about answering a fool according to his folly?

 

[marymary1975]

I had read their first blog concerning sending your daughters to college and thought that was total bunk, but this is almost worse. To deny either a young woman or man from obtaining an education because of the fear that the "“controller” will no longer be worshipped as a king, is unreal in this day and age. It is beyond by reasoning that a woman with one grain of self respect would ever become involved with a man who believes this anti-woman and anti education ****. This is, by no means, Catholic teaching.

Everyone should read both blogs - the entire concept is so corrupt. Does anyone here on CAF know if there are even any non-Catholic religious groups in the First World who spout this damaging rhetoric?

I not only read those two blogs but their entire website. That is why I say that he is mixing evangelical theories and even Muslim interpretations with catholicism. He agrees with basic precepts of catholicism but his interpretations are not catholic. To me his rethoric is damaging because is pick and choose which is a very troubling position.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

As far as the previous thread is concerned, Cat summed up the most important issue for all Catholics here in post 27:

Cat:

I think what’s scariest about this article/blog is that the author implies that this is what the Catholic Church teaches. This is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[57thDimension]

Did I miss your answer? If I did, please repeat it. If I did not, by all means answer now.

You did miss it. I will paraphrase my final response to your question: I will not answer the question because it is unnecessary for the discussion.

Can you tell me why you need to know? Is it to ignore, or dismiss, or some other reason? I have already witnessed people’s responses being driven by what they think my views are. If it is so difficult for them to separate arguments from views, why should I encourage it further?

As you may recall, people in the other thread focused on my personal opinion (which I revealed, but most managed to ignore) over my arguments. For them, apparently, a person’s views must be known in order to respond to the arguments (perhaps in determining the number of personal attacks to use, etc).

---

Since we’re on the topic of answering questions asked long ago, perhaps you could go through the thread and respond to my questions and points (though, admittedly, you would hard-pressed to do so).

 

[RPRPsych]

I not only read those two blogs but their entire website. That is why I say that he is mixing evangelical theories and even Muslim interpretations with catholicism. He agrees with basic precepts of catholicism but his interpretations are not catholic. To me his rethoric is damaging because is pick and choose which is a very troubling position.

So let’s see: A mixture of evangelical, Muslim and Catholic theories, endorsed by a Gnostic.

Time to call in Matthew Fox to unravel the whole thing.

 

[marymary1975]

As far as the previous thread is concerned, Cat summed up the most important issue for all Catholics here in post 27:

 

[57thDimension]

Either you think that I intend to keep making strawmans out of this gentleman’s argument.

Well, that’s certainly a possibility, though only you can know that. It’s worth pointing out the logical flaw in your argument, as well as letting you identify it in order to not make the same mistake in the future. See, if I point it out to you, will you do the work next time, or will you expect others to do the same thing each time (a la “an unopposed argument is a perfect argument”)?

So you see, either way, your behavior didn’t make any sense unless you’re purposefully trying to prevent a meaningful discussion. Incidentally, I believe that is exactly what you are trying to do.

It doesn’t make sense to you.

 

[EasterJoy]

You did miss it. I will paraphrase my final response to your question: I will not answer the question because it is unnecessary for the discussion.

Can you tell me why you need to know? Is it to ignore, or dismiss, or some other reason? I have already witnessed people’s responses being driven by what they think my views are. If it is so difficult for them to separate arguments from views, why should I encourage it further?

As you may recall, people in the other thread focused on my personal opinion (which I revealed, but most managed to ignore) over my arguments. For them, apparently, a person’s views must be known in order to respond to the arguments (perhaps in determining the number of personal attacks to use, etc).

Since we’re on the topic of answering questions asked long ago, perhaps you could go through the thread and respond to my questions and points (though, admittedly, you would hard-pressed to do so).

I asked the question I did because I described the position I was in at eighteen, excepting that my parents wanted all their children to have the opportunity to attend college, if that was the best way for them to prepare to gain employment.

I will give you the most *practical *response I have to your “points”: If you can’t explain your position in a way that would fly with your own very bright and capable daughter, just save it. Why? Because it is her life and if you can’t explain yourself to her, she is going to ignore you and do what she wants to do with her own life, and there is not a thing you can do about it. What good are all your arguments in that case? They are empty impotent rhetoric, worth nothing except to impress yourself.

If my father had refused to help pay for my education, I would have left home and figured out how to pay for it myself. Why? Well, I wasn’t married, I had no guarantee that I’d get married or that my husband will never die or leave me to raise our children by myself, I certainly wasn’t going to get stuck marrying in order to not go hungry or go without health insurance, and my intellect is my most marketable aptitude. It is the best way I had to prepare myself to provide for myself, and there is no reason for me to have believed I’d never have to do so. Girls with less intellect had fewer choices than I had. Considering economic reality in our society, I would have been foolish if I hadn’t gone to college.

Parents cannot deny higher education to a young woman who wants it. They can, however, drive her to leave home as soon as she reaches majority, make sure that she will have more debt as she gains her education and spends more time doing it, so that she will be less able to marry young than if they had given her the help they could have and less able to stay home with her children when she has them. As for the women who don’t get college educations, they go to work, too, in order to make ends meet, and they have to work longer hours to make the same pay. They don’t have the “part time” option that better-paid women do.

 

[57thDimension]

It gets better. If you get married, you’re not supposed to enjoy marital relations, because that’s a mortal sin (and Aquinas, who disagrees with 57D, was wrong on this.) And “every wife is a prostitute”. Why? Because the Gnostic heretic Tatian says so, and 57D considers him more authoritative than Paul VI or John Paul II.

What was that Proverb about answering a fool according to his folly?

I’ve noticed that you make many accusations (without support), unrelated to the topic at hand. Why is that?

Please look up the term “ad hominem” (and, after you do, stop using them).

Please look up the term “poisoning the well” (and, after you do, stop doing it).

---

If you absolutely must resort to using logical fallacies to attack my arguments/posts, then perhaps you should engage in a bit of introspection to find out why.

It’s a bit embarrassing (for you), that your arguments (and supporting posts) for higher education are riddled with logical fallacies.

 

[RPRPsych]

I’ve noticed that you make many accusations (without support)

All the material I’ve quoted is from your own posts on this forum.

, unrelated to the topic at hand. Why is that?

Viewing women as inferior and even marriage as a “necessary evil” is certainly germane to the topic at hand.

Please look up the term “ad hominem” (and, after you do, stop using them).

I have nothing against you; only the errors that you seem to endorse and propagate. I believe it was St. Pope Pius X who pointed out that error has no rights.

If I say “X committed adultery, so I can’t take his argument on the Holy Trinity seriously”, that’s an ad hominem.

If I say “X’s writings endorse pantheism, which is in contradiction to what the Church teaches about God”, that’s not an ad hominem.

Please look up the term “poisoning the well” (and, after you do, stop doing it).

Haven’t had a well in my house for over 20 years. Boy, that brings back memories. We did have a squirrel fall into our water tank once…ugh!

Just curious, though: what are the other 56 dimensions? (Even superstring theory only has 12 or so…)

 

[livingwordunity]

Yeah, I am pretty offended by this website too. It is things like this that make me never want to marry a Catholic man …and it seriously makes me doubt the faith. I am almost done with this religion I think.

You are considering leaving a religion that is thousands of years old because of one website that you don’t like?

The one who is solely responsible for Catholicism is Jesus since He is the one who founded the Church. Therefore, Jesus is the first one people need to evaluate when judging Catholicism. Ask yourself this. Who else is like Jesus? What other man in history (not a mythological figure but a historical man) not only claimed to be God but was able to prove it to all who were around him? Even today, who can walk on water? Who can raise the dead? Who can instantly cure any and all diseases and deformities with the touch of a hand?

 

[57thDimension]

I asked the question I did because I described the position I was in at eighteen, excepting that my parents wanted all their children to have the opportunity to attend college, if that was the best way for them to prepare to gain employment.

Okay.

I will give you the most *practical *response I have to your “points”:

Why the quotation marks? (That doesn’t count as a response or refutation, by the way.)

If you can’t explain your position in a way that would fly with your own very bright and capable daughter, just save it. Why? Because it is her life and if you can’t explain yourself to her, she is going to ignore you and do what she wants to do with her own life, and there is not a thing you can do about it. What good are all your arguments in that case?

The validity of an argument is not determined by the response to it. It is true or false on its own. You’ve committed a fallacy here - please name it.

They are empty impotent rhetoric, worth nothing except to impress yourself.

Again, you are imputing things to me that should not be. This is what I was talking about: you are overly concerned with my views on the subject, and, by how you’ve phrased things above, it’s clear you’ve chosen a position for me.

If my father had refused to help pay for my education, I would have left home and figured out how to pay for it myself. Why? Well, I wasn’t married, I had no guarantee that I’d get married or that my husband will never die or leave me to raise our children by myself, I certainly wasn’t going to get stuck marrying in order to not go hungry or go without health insurance, and my intellect is my most marketable aptitude. It is the best way I had to prepare myself to provide for myself, and there is no reason for me to have believed I’d never have to do so. Girls with less intellect had fewer choices than I had. Considering economic reality in our society, I would have been foolish if I hadn’t gone to college.

Okay, I responded to a comment just like this in the earlier thread. Briefly: where is the dividing line between your views (and interpretation) and reality (for others, esp.)? How did you get from one to the other? You make a few ‘logical leaps’ in the above.

Do you know what the original arguments were for having women in higher education?

Others have mentioned education for its own sake earlier in this thread. In light of your arguments in your post, what do you make of that?

Parents cannot deny higher education to a young woman who wants it.

Are you making a descriptive or normative claim here?

They can, however, drive her to leave home as soon as she reaches majority, make sure that she will have more debt as she gains her education and spends more time doing it, so that she will be less able to marry young than if they had given her the help they could have and less able to stay home with her children when she has them.

Name the fallacy.

As for the women who don’t get college educations, they go to work, too, in order to make ends meet, and they have to work longer hours to make the same pay. They don’t have the “part time” option that better-paid women do.

What’s your point, besides the fact that people with more education, on average, make more money*?

*Not by a lot, actually (remember: debt and opportunity cost).

 

[57thDimension]

All the material I’ve quoted is from your own posts on this forum.

No.

Viewing women as inferior and even marriage as a “necessary evil” is certainly germane to the topic at hand.

Where did you get that from?

If I say “X committed adultery, so I can’t take his argument on the Holy Trinity seriously”, that’s an ad hominem.

If I say “X’s writings endorse pantheism, which is in contradiction to what the Church teaches about God”, that’s not an ad hominem.

As I said above, please learn about ad hominems (NB: in your previous post, there were mostly circumstantial ad hominems). You don’t seem to understand that you are using ad hominems; I will simply take it as ignorance rather than malice.

Haven’t had a well in my house for over 20 years. Boy, that brings back memories. We did have a squirrel fall into our water tank once…ugh!

If you aren’t familiar with it (which it seems you aren’t), then it would be good to look it up.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

One could always get a pet, but it’s not quite the same.

Men and women are made for each other.

Indeed, pets are easier to housebreak.

So we’ve been told.

 

[twoshoes]

I’m offended for the women here. Moderator, can we lock this thread?

Why does debate have to be locked? Does it scare you that much to hear a view opposite of yours? Now that is offensive. No argument, no comeback?

 

[twoshoes]

He forgets the part that in today’s world, unless the man can bring in a huge pay check, it’s almost impossible for families to live on one income, even without all of the luxuries.

One can possibly argue that if the feminist movement never occurred the price of living wouldn’t have shot up so much… There is theory to this in that higher supply of workers, same demand = lower salaries and/or inflating prices to match the fact that the average family has two incomes.

Even if that is true, at this point it can’t be reversed and the average family can in no way live on one income.

I quote Jesus" where the mind is there lies your treasure". If your love is money by all means think first of yourself. If your mind is on God and a loving family then run to God.

 

[on_the_hill]

I have to admit, I’m not sure what a strawman is.

I mean, of course I know the definition. But it seems when people are faced with an argument they can’t answer, they toss that phrase out like a bank robber lobbing smoke bombs to conceal his escape