Certain attitudes in traddom

[SBroxson]

What is the point of this post? To point out that women are not perfect?

I’ve explained that extensively in earlier posts. (And you did understand that the post you quoted was the last of a 3 part post?)

As indicated in earlier posts, the points are:

1. 3rd wave feminism is explicitly anti-Christian, and has as its fundamental goal the destruction of the family.
2. Feminism has been astoundingly effective–which is to say destructive.
3. Feminism is Marxist, which means that it denies the power of love. Moreover, it is a massive exercise in self-righteous vanity. (An all evil oppressor class; an all good oppressed class.)
4. Therefore, Feminism views men as pure evil, and women as pure good. This makes a family nonsensical. There can be no marriage based upon mutual honor when there is nothing to honor in the husband because he is a man. Why would perfect woman want to join herself to slime?
5. When Pope John Paul II wrote on the subject, he spoke about a feminine genius, but no masculine genius. Like feminists, he identified specific faults in men, and virtues in women: that played into feminists hands.
6. Although I think that it was a mistake for the Pope to play into the hands of feminists, he was speaking as a man. It was humble to criticize his own sex, and praise the opposite sex. However, when his call for a new Christian feminism is taken up, it is usually by women: and the effect is completely different–the opposite of what the Pope did in a way.
7. I do not think that we can stop feminism until we are willing to call them on their game. It is hard, because we are (properly) very protective towards women. But I think the issue of gender righteousness must be directly addressed. We are ALL fallen, and we are ALL (potentially) nobel! I think feminists must be directly attacked on their assumption that men are always evil, and that women never need to examine their own motives.

 

[TrueLight]

I’ve explained that extensively in earlier posts. (And you did understand that the post you quoted was the last of a 3 part post?)

As indicated in earlier posts, the points are:

1. 3rd wave feminism is explicitly anti-Christian, and has as its fundamental goal the destruction of the family.
2. Feminism has been astoundingly effective–which is to say destructive.
3. Feminism is Marxist, which means that it denies the power of love. Moreover, it is a massive exercise in self-righteous vanity. (An all evil oppressor class; an all good oppressed class.)
4. Therefore, Feminism views men as pure evil, and women as pure good. This makes a family nonsensical. There can be no marriage based upon mutual honor when there is nothing to honor in the husband because he is a man. Why would perfect woman want to join herself to slime?
5. When Pope John Paul II wrote on the subject, he spoke about a feminine genius, but no masculine genius. Like feminists, he identified specific faults in men, and virtues in women: that played into feminists hands.
6. Although I think that it was a mistake for the Pope to play into the hands of feminists, he was speaking as a man. It was humble to criticize his own sex, and praise the opposite sex. However, when his call for a new Christian feminism is taken up, it is usually by women: and the effect is completely different–the opposite of what the Pope did in a way.
7. I do not think that we can stop feminism until we are willing to call them on their game. It is hard, because we are (properly) very protective towards women. But I think the issue of gender righteousness must be directly addressed. We are ALL fallen, and we are ALL (potentially) nobel! I think feminists must be directly attacked on their assumption that men are always evil, and that women never need to examine their own motives.

Yes, I read all three parts.

Thanks for taking the time to summarize.

I don’t think I agree with point 4, but I don’t want to debate it either.

 

[asd72]

Now, before ending, let me warn you that disregarding men’s virtues can be fatal–literally! There was a situation during 9/11 in the world trade center. It has been included in a number of write ups, and the man was interviewed by NPR and you can hear his story. Listening to him, you can see that he is a kind man…but clearly a man and even protective of others. Ugh! When the lights went off, he retrieved his “personal flashlight.” (That would be a Sure Fire, or similar, flashlight that is favored by equipment-guys.) He got all of his staff out (whom were female), and started down the stairs. On the stairs, they met two women. (In the NPR interview, he called them a “couple.”) The women told them that there was a raging inferno below, and it was not possible to pass: they should all go to the roof where helicopters would save them. He argue that going up made no sense. His view was bolstered by the fact that there was no major amount of smoke in the stairwell. As they were having the discussion, there was a yell for help: a man on the floor where they stopped had been pinned…and our hero went to free him. When he came back out, the women were gone–up the stairs.

Now, don’t you just know what the conversation was like the second that he left? The rolling of the feminine eyes! These liberated New York women certainly weren’t going to listen to a man! *Who had a “personal flashlight” no less!

Any way, he and the man that he rescued went down the stairs and to safety. They found the “inferno”: there was a crack in the door, and you could see fire and it did look frightening, but it really was no big deal. No great amount of heat in the stairwell. No smoke. No problem. At all. The two women just over-reacted to the stimulus (as women are more likely to do)…and it cost them their lives as well as the lives of the women who listened to them.

I do not really think this story demonstrates anything at all about feminism, except what you have projected onto it. This is about people (men and women) in a desperate situation, with limited information, faced with a choice. They could not KNOW which was the right choice.

As for the feminism discussion in general I am not getting involved.

 

[severus68]

END OF TALK (PART 3):

On a more mundane level, studies have found that women are more likely to use the passive voice: which blurs responsibility.

Let’s turn now to voting. G. K. Chesterton’s objection to women voting rested upon conversations that he had with his wife and his housekeeper: they didn’t want it, and that ended all enquiry for him. But others raised a more substantive objection: women might be too concerned with kitchen table issues–petty personal issues. Now here comes feminism to say: “the personal is the political!” Which really is a very terrible political philosophy if you care anything at all about limited government–or limiting government debt.

When you look how women vote and men vote: where there is a difference, women are wrong. Seriously. In issue after issue. But which women are wrong? Single women are wrong (speaking in generalities): married women vote much as their husbands (especially if they have children). So, the effective result of women being deprived of the vote all those years was that the votes of single women didn’t count. I’m certainly not suggesting that we abandon the vote, but there you have it.

Now, before ending, let me warn you that disregarding men’s virtues can be fatal–literally! There was a situation during 9/11 in the world trade center. It has been included in a number of write ups, and the man was interviewed by NPR and you can hear his story. Listening to him, you can see that he is a kind man…but clearly a man and even protective of others. Ugh! When the lights went off, he retrieved his “personal flashlight.” (That would be a Sure Fire, or similar, flashlight that is favored by equipment-guys.) He got all of his staff out (whom were female), and started down the stairs. On the stairs, they met two women. (In the NPR interview, he called them a “couple.”) The women told them that there was a raging inferno below, and it was not possible to pass: they should all go to the roof where helicopters would save them. He argue that going up made no sense. His view was bolstered by the fact that there was no major amount of smoke in the stairwell. As they were having the discussion, there was a yell for help: a man on the floor where they stopped had been pinned…and our hero went to free him. When he came back out, the women were gone–up the stairs.

Now, don’t you just know what the conversation was like the second that he left? The rolling of the feminine eyes! These liberated New York women certainly weren’t going to listen to a man! *Who had a “personal flashlight” no less!

Any way, he and the man that he rescued went down the stairs and to safety. They found the “inferno”: there was a crack in the door, and you could see fire and it did look frightening, but it really was no big deal. No great amount of heat in the stairwell. No smoke. No problem. At all. The two women just over-reacted to the stimulus (as women are more likely to do)…and it cost them their lives as well as the lives of the women who listened to them.

There was a time when women looked up to men: when they did, men acted much better and also put women on a pedestal–men and women looked up to each other. Now we look down on each other. How’s it working out for us? How pointlessly foolish we’ve been!

It’s interesting that this orgy of criticism of men, and the refusal to see anything good in them, happened during the same period of the self-esteem movement. Now, we know the problems with the self-esteem movement, but isn’t it interesting that we were so willing to imply to our own sons that there was nothing possibly good for them to aim for other than to be like a woman–and we knew that would never sell? So, we brought our sons up without any positive goal, and left manhood to the punks to define…and have reaped the whirlwind. We destroyed the hope of health and happiness for our sons and our daughters. We’ve rejected the nobility of all of our male ancestors, our sibling, our husbands, and the fruit of our wombs. Now, was that stupid ugliness, or ugly stupidity? *

What madcap fun we’ve been having! And there is so much more to do!

Oh, by the way, if you disagree with any–or all–of the feminine faults that I’ve suggested: fine!!! But understand this: you must come up with equally ugly alternatives. Or admit that you believe men are inferior. Which is not Christian. And THAT’S not funny.

You take a little bit of truth and spin it. Your philosophy disrespects women. I will take John Paul II’s Mulieris Diignitatem any day over your letter of tirade against women…

 

[SBroxson]

You take a little bit of truth and spin it. Your philosophy disrespects women. I will take John Paul II’s Mulieris Diignitatem any day over your letter of tirade against women…

A friend who is a veteran of many battles with feminism noted that most feminist “arguments” come down to this:

1. I am a good person.
2. I believe X.
3. You don’t believe X.
4. Therefore, you are a bad person.

(Actually, this is typical of the left in general: sexist, racist, homophobe, fascist, fundamentalists, etc. Mostly it is all personal attacks, rather than addressing the issues.)

For decades, we protested that #4 simply was not true! Honestly, we honor all people, and…and…and… And then came Ann Coulter, who I regard as an excellent comedian, and pointed out that the problem was in premise #1: those who slander are not really that terrific of people–nor are the those who sponsor the killing of the unborn, and the sundering of marriage. (Of course, since this is a secular movement, I’m speaking in a secular sense–in Catholic terms, we ALL fall short of the glory of God…which was precisely my point.)

If you subtract out the gender-righteousness, and gender vanity, of feminism, you are left with…nothing, because feminism has–in fact–been horrible to women! And if it really is true that men have no virtues, and women no faults, then feminists are correct: Christianity makes no sense; Christian marriage makes no sense; the Fall makes no sense; etc.

These are not SIDE issues: these are THE issues–and so I think that they are unavoidable.

Moreover, I believe that many Catholics have been taken in to some degree: the quoted comment being a possible case in point. Even within the context of a corrective of 50 years of male bashing, I said some of the strongest things that have ever been written against men as a group. But here’s the deal: nothing positive may ever be acknowledged about masculinity; and nothing negative about femininity. And too often, this is how we are raising both our sons and our daughters. How heartlessly destructive.

Note that at the end my “tirade”–although I said in CAPITAL letters that it was to be read humorously–the observation that it doesn’t matter what the faults are of men and women as a group–or virtues–pick your own! It is just that they must equal out.

Another person noted that I used an antidote: indeed! This was not intended to be a sociological dissertation. What matters is that we both have a genius, that we are both fallen, and that we are both equal before God–although different.

As to Mulieris Dignitatem, there are only two possibilities. One, which I totally reject, is that Pope JPII actually agreed with feminists that men have no virtues and that women are without sin. The only other one, which I entirely believe, is that he expressed an incomplete thought: because there can be no feminine genius if there is not also a masculine one; and there can be no fall if it was not regarding both sexes.

Your comment also illustrates my point that feminists use the proper protectiveness and honor that we show women to advance their agenda: for if women are pure good by definition, and men are pure bad by definition, then feminism is correct.

In our society, most of us cannot even imagine that there is any real complementarity, because that would require that each sex have a deficiency which is met by a corresponding strength. There seems to be no doubt in our country the many masculine deficiencies–and certainly not in my mind!–but we have yet to identify even one masculine strength (other than perhaps men are handy to carry in the groceries in). Nor have we yet to identify even one feminine short coming (other than, on average, women can carry in fewer groceries at one time–but feminists even seek to minimize the differences in strength).

 

[JReducation]

As to Mulieris Dignitatem, there are only two possibilities. One, which I totally reject, is that Pope JPII actually agreed with feminists that men have no virtues and that women are without sin. The only other one, which I entirely believe, is that he expressed an incomplete thought: because there can be no feminine genius if there is not also a masculine one; and there can be no fall if it was not regarding both sexes.

I think you have to look at why he wrote it and his target audience. Obviously, the Holy Father was not denying the virtue and sin of both genters. However, it is not an incomplete thought either. You underestimate this man’s intelligence and knowledge.

To understand the document, one must go back and understand the context in which it was written and the reason why it was written. Otherwise, we run the risk of pitting our knowledge and understanding of the issue against a man who could run circles around us in intelligence, knowledge and holiness. This is one of the attitudes of the extreme right and left, extreme Traditionalista nd extreme liberals. They have the audacity to to assume to know more and be more Catholic than the pope. Pope Benedict pointed to this when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. He spoke about the arrogance. The same can be said for the other extreme, those who push for women’s ordination, abortion, same-sex marriage etc, because the Church allegedly does not understand as well as they do.

One has to avoid this slippery slope. Unless one is an intellectual equal to such men as John Paul II or Benedict XVI, one has to look at what they say and ask themselves about context, reason for writing and target audience. On that last point, it’s important to remember that most of what popes write is not meant to be read by the laity. It’s meant for bishops, scholars, clergy, religious and world leaders, not for the average man in the pew. We’re in an age where we can read all of these things, because we have Internet. Just because it’s available for us to read it, does not mean that it was written for us. In the end, we have to read by placing ourselves in the shoes of the target population. Then things make greater sense. Equally important is to isolate the specific issue that the pope is addressing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SBroxson]

I think you have to look at why he wrote it and his target audience. Obviously, the Holy Father was not denying the virtue and sin of both genters. However, it is not an incomplete thought either. You underestimate this man’s intelligence and knowledge.

To understand the document, one must go back and understand the context in which it was written and the reason why it was written. Otherwise, we run the risk of pitting our knowledge and understanding of the issue against a man who could run circles around us in intelligence, knowledge and holiness. This is one of the attitudes of the extreme right and left, extreme Traditionalista nd extreme liberals. They have the audacity to to assume to know more and be more Catholic than the pope. Pope Benedict pointed to this when he lifted the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. He spoke about the arrogance. The same can be said for the other extreme, those who push for women’s ordination, abortion, same-sex marriage etc, because the Church allegedly does not understand as well as they do.

One has to avoid this slippery slope. Unless one is an intellectual equal to such men as John Paul II or Benedict XVI, one has to look at what they say and ask themselves about context, reason for writing and target audience. On that last point, it’s important to remember that most of what popes write is not meant to be read by the laity. It’s meant for bishops, scholars, clergy, religious and world leaders, not for the average man in the pew. We’re in an age where we can read all of these things, because we have Internet. Just because it’s available for us to read it, does not mean that it was written for us. In the end, we have to read by placing ourselves in the shoes of the target population. Then things make greater sense. Equally important is to isolate the specific issue that the pope is addressing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Within Catholicism, everything is connected: it necessarily follows that EVERYTHING is an incomplete thought–by necessity. Certainly, the vast number of issues raised by feminism, the dignity of women, marriage, etc., could not possibly be addressed by one relatively brief document. You are entirely mistaken that I underestimate the intelligence of the Pope.

I continue to insist that it is indeed proper to discuss matters in a discussion group!

I also stand by my earlier comments. Your claim that I must be silent is totally at odds with Vatican II, the words and examples of our two most recent Popes, and the Vatican. The Church listens even to animists! Nobody is beneath a hearing!

Moreover, you seemed to have misunderstood the issues that I was raising: it concerned the purely secular effects of Church statements regarding a purely secular movement. Nor was I intending to key in on only one document, but I was taking the Pope’s comments as one whole–no matter to whom they were addressed. (If I’m mistaken, and the Pope said at some other time that there was ALSO a masculine genius, I’d be delighted to hear it!) As a result, audacity, and “assuming to know more and be more Catholic than the pope” does not enter into this discussion to even the tiniest degree.

I would be happy to discuss the ISSUES, or not, as you choose. However, you are without authority to silence me–which seams to be your project. A silent discussion? What a concept!

 

[Walking_Home]

SBroxson:

END OF TALK (PART 3):

On a more mundane level, studies have found that women are more likely to use the passive voice: which blurs responsibility.

Let’s turn now to voting. G. K. Chesterton’s objection to women voting rested upon conversations that he had with his wife and his housekeeper: they didn’t want it, and that ended all enquiry for him. But others raised a more substantive objection: women might be too concerned with kitchen table issues–petty personal issues. Now here comes feminism to say: “the personal is the political!” Which really is a very terrible political philosophy if you care anything at all about limited government–or limiting government debt.

When you look how women vote and men vote: where there is a difference, women are wrong. Seriously. In issue after issue. But which women are wrong? Single women are wrong (speaking in generalities): married women vote much as their husbands (especially if they have children). So, the effective result of women being deprived of the vote all those years was that the votes of single women didn’t count. I’m certainly not suggesting that we abandon the vote, but there you have it.

Now, before ending, let me warn you that disregarding men’s virtues can be fatal–literally! There was a situation during 9/11 in the world trade center. It has been included in a number of write ups, and the man was interviewed by NPR and you can hear his story. Listening to him, you can see that he is a kind man…but clearly a man and even protective of others. Ugh! When the lights went off, he retrieved his “personal flashlight.” (That would be a Sure Fire, or similar, flashlight that is favored by equipment-guys.) He got all of his staff out (whom were female), and started down the stairs. On the stairs, they met two women. (In the NPR interview, he called them a “couple.”) The women told them that there was a raging inferno below, and it was not possible to pass: they should all go to the roof where helicopters would save them. He argue that going up made no sense. His view was bolstered by the fact that there was no major amount of smoke in the stairwell. As they were having the discussion, there was a yell for help: a man on the floor where they stopped had been pinned…and our hero went to free him. When he came back out, the women were gone–up the stairs.

Now, don’t you just know what the conversation was like the second that he left? The rolling of the feminine eyes! These liberated New York women certainly weren’t going to listen to a man! *Who had a “personal flashlight” no less!

Any way, he and the man that he rescued went down the stairs and to safety. They found the “inferno”: there was a crack in the door, and you could see fire and it did look frightening, but it really was no big deal. No great amount of heat in the stairwell. No smoke. No problem. At all. The two women just over-reacted to the stimulus (as women are more likely to do)…and it cost them their lives as well as the lives of the women who listened to them.

There was a time when women looked up to men: when they did, men acted much better and also put women on a pedestal–men and women looked up to each other. Now we look down on each other. How’s it working out for us? How pointlessly foolish we’ve been!

It’s interesting that this orgy of criticism of men, and the refusal to see anything good in them, happened during the same period of the self-esteem movement. Now, we know the problems with the self-esteem movement, but isn’t it interesting that we were so willing to imply to our own sons that there was nothing possibly good for them to aim for other than to be like a woman–and we knew that would never sell? So, we brought our sons up without any positive goal, and left manhood to the punks to define…and have reaped the whirlwind. We destroyed the hope of health and happiness for our sons and our daughters. We’ve rejected the nobility of all of our male ancestors, our sibling, our husbands, and the fruit of our wombs. Now, was that stupid ugliness, or ugly stupidity? *

What madcap fun we’ve been having! And there is so much more to do!

Oh, by the way, if you disagree with any–or all–of the feminine faults that I’ve suggested: fine!!! But understand this: you must come up with equally ugly alternatives. Or admit that you believe men are inferior. Which is not Christian. And THAT’S not funny.

You take a little bit of truth and spin it. Your philosophy disrespects women. I will take John Paul II’s Mulieris Diignitatem any day over your letter of tirade against women…

---

Ditto.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

Rudeness in speaking to and about clergy, religious and popes is not allowed. Please read the pertinent rules under the link below.

Ranting is not discussing. Please refrain from arguing. It serves no purpose.