Discussing Radical Nazi Feminista/Feminism

[AngryAtheist8]

This is such a hodgepodge of insightful and tragically ignorant that I don’t know where to begin.

However, these excerpts are an excellent litmus test for whether or not you “get” feminism.

In Spiration posted an even more intellectually suspect article to argue that women are stupid in a dead (i.e. Closed) thread. Here’s the post in question in case your curious:

Feb 3, '11, 8:27 pm
In Spiration
Junior Member Join Date: June 8, 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 163
Religion: Catholic

Re: Feminist “Philosophy”

---

I’d like to at least introduce a side of these arguments that often gets suppressed nowadays. Obviously, it’s usually found impolite and socially unacceptable to suggest that one sex may potentially be better than another. I think we should at least weigh some contrary evidence, especially since our era’s opinions are somewhat at odds with the “democracy of the dead”.

Some food for thought (from the alleged words of King Solomon):

Quote:
26 And I have found a woman more bitter than death, who is the hunter’s snare, and her heart is a net, and her hands are bands. He that pleases God shall escape from her: but he that is a sinner, shall be caught by her. 27 Lo this have I found, said Ecclesiastes, weighing one thing after another, that I might find out the account, 28 which yet my soul seeks, and I have not found it. One man among a thousand I have found, a woman among them all I have not found. 29 Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he has entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Who is as the wise man? And who has known the resolution of the word?

[Ecclesiastes 7]

Anyway, what precisely does everyone mean by “equal”? I really can’t even say yet whether I affirm or deny this ambiguously termed equality among men and women. To be honest, I would probably reject it in regard to both physical and mental capacity. As a consequence, I will say this: concerning philosophical aptitude, I don’t think women are on the same level as men. Never to instigate, of course, but I’m curious: what does everyone think of philosopher David Stove’s “The Intellectual Capacity of Women”?

Request: Please try your best to refrain from inferring much about my personal character and judging beyond the theoretical scope of my posts. Muchas gracias.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

To fellow Catholics: Here’s a related post I just recently wrote in another thread.

To all: The following are excerpts from an essay I highly recommend to everyone in its entirety, F. Roger Devlin’s “Home economics”. Given the length, and laziness, though, I’ll just post a few especially relevant parts.

[T]he high standing of women in our civilization not only long predates feminist ideology but is logically incompatible with it. To understand why, one needs to keep two points in mind: 1) women’s traditional status was linked to behavioral expectations — fulfilling the duties of their station; and 2) it assumed qualitative differences and complementarity (rather than “fair” competition) between the sexes.

As to the first point: strictly speaking, it was never women as such who enjoyed high status but rather the social roles proper to them — those of wife and mother, chiefly. Being born female (or male) is merely a natural fact of no intrinsic moral significance, but the filling of a social role involves effort and often sacrifice. Accordingly, the respect paid to women was not an unconditional birthright; it was reserved for women who fulfilled their feminine obligations.

Among those obligations, marital fidelity was of supreme importance: so much so that in our language general terms such as virtue and morality have often been used to refer specifically to sexual fidelity in women. That is owing not to irrational prudery, as the apostles of sexual liberation imagined, but to the recognition that all which is necessary to destroy a race and civilization is for its women to refuse to be faithful wives and mothers.

. . .

A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

By the male role I mean, in the first place, providing, protecting, and guiding rather than nurturing and assisting. This in turn involves relative independence, action, and competition in the larger impersonal society outside the family, the use of language for communication and analysis (rather than expressiveness or emotional manipulation), and deliberate behavior aiming at objective achievement (rather than the attainment of pleasant subjective states) and guided by practical reasoning (rather than emotional impulse).

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically male attributes have a natural primacy over their own. I prefer to speak of “primacy” rather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary to propagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role by men is virtually nonexistent — even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

Normal women are attracted to male traits and wish to partner with a man who possesses them. Healthy societies are marked by a cooperative reciprocity between the sexes, but an unequal one in the sense that it involves male leadership of the female, somewhat as in ballroom dancing.

The feminists’ response to the primacy of male traits, on the other hand, is a feeling of inadequacy in regard to men — a feeling ill-disguised by defensive assertions of her “equality.” She desires to possess masculinity directly, in her own person, rather than partnering with a man. That is what leads her into the spiritual cul de sac of envy.

Even those who argue that many of the stereotypical differences between men and women are innate, will usually admit women are better communicators (whereas men are better at spatial reasoning). If I recall correctly you yourself In Spiration have cited work that says as much when debating me.

The fact that Roger Devlin considers even women’s ability to communicate to be inferior is rather telling

 

[tonyrey]

My apologies for taking a while to respond to this. I’ve been thinking about this post a lot, but have been struggling to find the right words. Okay, so you’re happy and fulfilled to submit to your husband. But whatabout women like me, who really wont have that. The idea of submitting to my husband is fairly abhorent. Are you saying that I should have to take a husband who is head of me?

1. It is inevitable that sooner or later a man and his wife are bound to disagree on an important issue.
2. If they are unwilling to compromise they value their own opinions more than their life together.
3. If they are unwilling to compromise they are entitled to separate rather than live in discord.
4. If they separate and have children they value their own opinions more than the welfare and happiness of their children.
5. It is more reasonable to consult an impartial adjudicator rather than assume that the man or his wife should have the last word.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

To fellow Catholics: Here’s a related post I just recently wrote in another thread.

To all: The following are excerpts from an essay I highly recommend to everyone in its entirety, F. Roger Devlin’s “Home economics”. Given the length, and laziness, though, I’ll just post a few especially relevant parts.

[T]he high standing of women in our civilization not only long predates feminist ideology but is logically incompatible with it. To understand why, one needs to keep two points in mind: 1) women’s traditional status was linked to behavioral expectations — fulfilling the duties of their station; and 2) it assumed qualitative differences and complementarity (rather than “fair” competition) between the sexes.

As to the first point: strictly speaking, it was never women as such who enjoyed high status but rather the social roles proper to them — those of wife and mother, chiefly. Being born female (or male) is merely a natural fact of no intrinsic moral significance, but the filling of a social role involves effort and often sacrifice. Accordingly, the respect paid to women was not an unconditional birthright; it was reserved for women who fulfilled their feminine obligations.

Among those obligations, marital fidelity was of supreme importance: so much so that in our language general terms such as virtue and morality have often been used to refer specifically to sexual fidelity in women. That is owing not to irrational prudery, as the apostles of sexual liberation imagined, but to the recognition that all which is necessary to destroy a race and civilization is for its women to refuse to be faithful wives and mothers.

. . .

A feminist in the strict and proper sense may be defined as a woman who envies the male role.

**By the male role I mean, in the first place, providing, protecting, and guiding rather than nurturing and assisting. This in turn involves relative independence, action, and competition in the larger impersonal society outside the family, the use of language for communication and analysis (rather than expressiveness or emotional manipulation), and deliberate behavior aiming at objective achievement (rather than the attainment of pleasant subjective states) and guided by practical reasoning (rather than emotional impulse).

Both feminist and nonfeminist women sense that these characteristically male attributes have a natural primacy over their own.** I prefer to speak of “primacy” rather than superiority in this context since both sets of traits are necessary to propagate the race. One sign of male primacy is that envy of the female role by men is virtually nonexistent — even, so far as I know, among homosexuals.

Normal women are attracted to male traits and wish to partner with a man who possesses them. Healthy societies are marked by a cooperative reciprocity between the sexes, but an unequal one in the sense that it involves male leadership of the female, somewhat as in ballroom dancing.

The feminists’ response to the primacy of male traits, on the other hand, is a feeling of inadequacy in regard to men — a feeling ill-disguised by defensive assertions of her “equality.” She desires to possess masculinity directly, in her own person, rather than partnering with a man. That is what leads her into the spiritual cul de sac of envy.

Father Devlin may deny it, but he obviously thinks women are inferior.
Since he describes women as being (specifically) pleasure seeking, manipulative, impulsive, and irrational.

Whereas (in his view) men are analytical, practical, independent, and superior communicators.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And finally:
These developments are economic in the most proper sense of the term, for the family is still a more fundamental economic fact than the market where goods and services are exchanged. Most professional economists, however, find no place in their thoughts for procreation, or even for sexual dimorphism. And I do not believe that results from the direct influence of anti-natalist or feminist ideology, in which most of them take no interest. It is rather that the home has simply fallen out of the economist’s purview.

For example, economists have produced cogent refutations of the feminist “57 cents on the dollar” canard, critiques of “comparable worth,” “affirmative action,” and so on. But they usually limit themselves to pointing out why men are more productive, i.e., why men’s labor commands a higher price on the market than women’s. They seem to accept the premise that women and men are interchangeable agents of production whose efficiency can be arithmetically assessed; they ignore qualitative social-role differentiation. That tends not only to undermine the dignity of the traditional female role of wife and mother, as gallant conservatives have long pointed out, but also the specifically male breadwinning role. For men are not simply more productive than women (although they are that as well); rather, they have a natural provider role with social and familial meaning.

The economy is not Wall Street; it is Dad dragging himself out of bed at six o’clock in the morning to go to an unglamorous job because he loves his children. It is a remarkable psychological fact that most men find satisfaction in providing for their families. They certainly do not take much satisfaction in paying income tax or meeting car payments. Children are frequently more expensive than taxes or cars, but most fathers take well to the provider role. Family life transforms what might otherwise be mere drudgery into a vocation; the father’s work acquires a significance it cannot have for a bachelor. Is there not something missing from a science of economics that has no use for this fact?

It is, therefore, an insufficient response to the feminist slogan of equal pay for equal work to show that women are not doing equal work. We will eventually have to rediscover the forgotten concept of the “family income” — not only because men usually happen to be better providers than women, but also because the male role is vulnerable in the modern world, and must be shored up for the family to function properly.

. . .

The contemporary white-collar employee is dependent upon a boss for his livelihood, and must therefore be deferential, diplomatic, and often less than forthright about what he thinks. It is not hard to see which sex is better at this sort of behavior. Women are cunning and play their cards close to their chest: an evolutionary adaptation left over from the days when their survival and reproductive success depended on an ability to manipulate males physically stronger than themselves. Today, it makes them naturals at office politics.
Most men find the atmosphere of the modern workplace stifling and tedious, and women themselves are seldom attracted to the sort of docile, gelded drudges that manage to succeed in it. But men cannot find refuge at home either, because the women who might have made homes for them are out competing against them in the activities of the broader society.

To these intrinsic male disadvantages in the modern workplace must be added those directly created by feminism.

British philosopher C.E.M. Joad once characterized cultural decadence as “a sign of man’s tendency to misread his position in the universe, to take a view of his status and prospects more exalted than the facts warrant and to conduct his societies and to plan his future on the basis of this misreading.” Feminism might usefully be viewed in this light as the decadence of European womanhood. It can only have been such a delusion of grandeur that led women with no experience of the world of industry to assert their “right” to a career — meaning, really, an easy and successful career. They pictured themselves, feet up on mahogany desks, barking orders at cringing male subordinates, and getting rewarded for it with fat paychecks and prestige.

The practical result of loudly proclaiming that careers will be opened to talents, as students of the “civil rights” movement know, is that vast hordes of formerly contented mediocrities start thinking of themselves as talented. When they fail at their endeavors, they feel cheated, assume someone else must be to blame, and call for punishment.

The gullible women who entered the workforce at the urging of feminists quickly discovered that they did not like it very much (despite their feminine advantages enumerated above). Work turned out to be … well, a lot of work. Their response to the broken promises of feminism, however, was not to blame the ideologues for having made them or themselves for having believed them; it was to blame men. Men simply had to re-engineer the world of work until women found it “fulfilling.” And feminism would lead the way again. (One of the movement’s greatest strengths has been this ability to profit politically from its own failures.)

I think that can basically serve as a response to every point I’ve missed while I’ve been away from the thread. (Due to outside obligations, I’ve been unable to keep up with the thread since late last week, so that’s the best I can do for now. I apologize if anyone seriously objects. Although, it’s probably better grasped all at once anyway, not spread out.)

Notice how even when Father Devlin appears to be complimenting women its really just a backhanded insult.
He’s basically saying (in the portion I highlighted) that women are better at office politics because they are natural manipulators and suck-ups.

 

[tonyrey]

Father Devlin may deny it, but he obviously thinks women are inferior.
Since he describes women as being (specifically) pleasure seeking, manipulative, impulsive, and irrational.

Whereas (in his view) men are analytical, practical, independent, and superior communicators.

It is also significant that he states:

“That is owing not to irrational prudery, as the apostles of sexual liberation imagined, but to the recognition that all which is necessary to destroy a race and civilization is for its women to refuse to be faithful wives and mothers.”

As if men have no such obligation - or a lesser one…

 

[LoyalChristian]

Hi Athiest. Women are not inferior, they are different. Men should love your wife, like Jesus loves his Church. I believe their shouldn’t be any hositility between the sexes.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hi Athiest. Women are not inferior, they are different. Jesus says that men should love your wife, like Jesus loves his Church. We women need men, as much as men need us. I believe their shouldn’t be hositility between the sexes.

The problem is many Christians (although it is hardly something unique to Christians) appear to sincerely believe that women are inferior and that their religion supports that belief.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem is many Christians (although it is hardly something unique to Christians) appear to sincerely believe that women are inferior and that their religion supports that belief.

Inferior in which respects?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

SH,

Your glib post missed the issue, both in general and re: the current “wave” of Feminism, which is mostly dangerous insofar as it’s a sub-movement of ubiquitously-PC Egalitarianism, a deviously Leftist sentiment/theory I’ll likely tackle later. But, hey, I’ll bite anyway.

Actually, that’s somewhat correct. Still, you shouldn’t aim at a man’s sense of honor in the hope he might quickly shut up if you first insinuate he’s an oppressive coward unless he mindlessly averts his eyes, lowers his chin, and submits to following the Womyn. To be more precise, what I dislike is the fact that a lot of women, “strong” or not, go about trying to thwart a man’s will strictly because they were positively encouraged their entire lives to do exactly that; and simply for the sake of proud defiance, i.e., of preemptively asserting themselves by awkward force, usually in anticipation of some oppression they’ve been taught to expect from us men.

I hope the following source is sufficiently authoritative in your mind. Ephesians 5:22-24, in no uncertain terms, states:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

Here’s that notorious macho pig G.K. Chesterton putting it rather nicely:

I have my own little notions of the possible emancipation of women; but I suppose I should not be taken very seriously if I propounded them. I should favour anything that would increase the present enormous authority of women and their creative action in their own homes. [Emphasis mine, here and below.]

OK, the “[liberty] to work” has always been available to women, legally, that is; and the “right to equal opportunity” is not really a right at all. I don’t know if “rights” even exist, to be terribly honest. Plus, I’m undecided on whether women’s suffrage is truly good, especially since it only seems to cause big problems. Its value is in no sense self-evident or indisputable. Women are naturally less motivated by concerns for justice. They inevitably side with policies that serve to increase the size & scope of the State and thereby undermine the primacy of the family unit – as financial independence and the government basically become a safety net to allay(/support) her excessive fear(/fancy) of being unable(/unwilling) to find a husband. When Schopenhauer said “the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no ‘sense of justice,’” he was apparently speaking in literal conformity with Nature. And a poor general regard for what’s objectively just and right is, needless to say, hardly conducive to wise opinions or votes.

Now, I state all this in spite of having 100% foreknowledge that at this moment you wish to proclaim my overall point incredibly beyond any merits for consideration. (Which is only to say, at bottom, how radically & shamefully unpopular it is in modern industrialized nations.)

I’ll proceed nevertheless.

Based on this post and others, I get the sense that In Spiration is proud of being contrary.

Or perhaps he geniunely believes that women are inferior to men and don’t care about justice (although he might just be saying women are too stupid to know what justice is).

 

[LoyalChristian]

I disagree. I think it’s a powerstruggle between men vs women. My father has never treated my mother with any disrespect, but in today’s society - I see really different attitudes of what relationships(negative) should be, and I believe media/entertainment plays a big role in that perception. I don’t really think it’s a Christian/religion thing. I was never taught that in the Church.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is a theologically-poor dodge. Feminism essentially undermines the Church and God’s natural order of creation. Yes, I imagine He is quite angry at girls who nevertheless insist, out of deep-seated pride and (penis) envy, on pushing one of Man’s most fundamentally disastrous agendas as their own misinformed pet ideology amid widespread decadence. Then again, my claim was overtly conditional upon your spreading this sexually-transmuted disease within the body of the Church. It clearly never presumed to settle God’s decision re: your ultimate fate. To get a taste of the gravity, though, you ought to reflect upon the wisdom of Hilaire Belloc from The Great Heresies, which I was reading a couple nights ago, incidentally. You see, in 1938 he condensed all historical threats to Catholicism into just five main movements, the greatest of which he deemed “the Modern Attack”:

*Whether we call it “The Modern Attack” or “anti-Christ” it is all one; there is a clear issue now joined between the retention of Catholic morals, tradition, and authority on the one side, and the active effort to destroy them on the other.

…It is concerned with the destruction of the Catholic Church and the civilization preceding therefrom. It is not troubled by apparent contradictions within its own body so long as the general alliance is one for the ending of all that by which we have hitherto lived.

…Communism (which is only one manifestation, and probably a passing one, of this Modern Attack) professes to be directed towards a certain good, to wit, the abolition of poverty. But it does not tell you why this should be a good; *it does not admit that its scheme is also to destroy other things which are also by the common consent of mankind good; the family, property (which is the guarantee of individual freedom and individual dignity), humor, mercy, and every form of what we consider right living.

*…When the reigning Pope in his Encyclical talked of men reduced “to a condition not far removed from slavery,” he meant just what has been said above. When the mass of families in a State are without property, then those who were once citizens become virtually slaves. *The more the State steps in to enforce conditions of security and sufficiency; the more it regulates wages, provides compulsory insurance, doctoring, education, and in general takes over the lives of the wage-earners, the more is this condition of semi-slavery accentuated. And if it be continued for, say, three generations, it will become so thoroughly established as a social habit and frame of mind that there may be no escape from it in the countries where State Socialism of this kind has been forged and riveted on the body politic.

Are you really so arrogant as to maintain we ought to toss out this inherited hierarchy, of both the West and the Church, on the grounds that it has all along been a simple product of hateful misogyny? Might you not be giving human civilizations prior to the 20th century enough credit? In light of all the damages (abortion, divorce, etc.) caused by this divisive Sexual Reformation, you’re going to be hard-pressed getting anyone on your side if we’re to judge things by their (questionably presented) fruits.

You’re accusing women (specifically feminists) of penis envy

Sounds like trolling to me:shrug:

On a more serious note, slavery has a pedigree almost as old as patriarchy. It has been a part (in one form or another) of all major civilizations until recently (in historical terms). Yet if our ancestors had used your logic they would have simply accepted it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by someperson555
thats the other part of the problem, women have been fed this false history of oppression. yeah its true that 200 years ago women had fewer rights than men, but you know what? men had a hell of a lot more responsibilities too lol, the men were expected to be the breadwinners, they were expected to go to war when they had to, not to mention women were usually treated more leniently by the law and society in general. so this feminist notion that “they were being oppressed” is not true.

You can have an easier life, but only if you’re a slave who’s intellectually and spiritually substandard?

Might want to go for the hard sell on that one…

Its not necessarily an easier life.
Keep in that in many ways 19th century American women were essentially owned by their husbands. Upon marriage all their property became their husbands (but not visa versa) and they needed their husband’s permission to do things like sign contracts (source: womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm).

Much like outright slaves, how well such women were treated was dependent on the goodwill of their husband/master.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Inferior in which respects?

Traditionally women have been viewed as being inferior in virtually all respects. Specifically the physical, intellectual, and spiritiual areas.
The debate over women’s spiritual nature could get particularly nasty.

Here’s a recent (extreme) example to show what I am talking about:

Heaven has no Feminine Side

By Pastor Robert L Davis

There are some amazing things that saints do not realize about the heavenly kingdom that awaits us. One of the amazing things is that there are no females in heaven. This is a fact that has been overlooked by many, partly because we simply assumed that men would go to heaven as men, and women would go to heaven as women. This is not the case. Based on the scriptures there is no feminine being in the kingdom of God. Moreover, I have found that, based upon the knowledge of God’s intentions for man, that there do not exist any female beings within the spiritual realms, very possibly, females exist only in this particular creation. This may seem a startling statement, but the scriptures and the understanding of God’s plan, bears this out. One thing must be pointed out, lest the fairer sex take offense, and that is the fact that women are a unique creation of God and men on this earth are probably the only beings blessed with their presence.

Before I present the scriptural support for this fact, I first ask you to consider all of the occasions in the bible that involve angels or heavenly beings. In every instance, the beings are male and not female. All of the angels mentioned, Gabriel, Michael, Satan, Apollyon, and Beelzebub are all male. The angels around the throne have the heads of various beasts and the head of a man. All encounters with spiritual creatures have revealed them to be male, without exception. There is one passage that can be confusing if not understood properly, and that passage is in Zechariah five. Here it mentions two women that have the wings of storks. In this instance, they refer to the angel as male and the others as two women. The two women in this instance are not heavenly creatures but they represent Judah (Jerusalem) and Israel (Sammaria). The word for women in this event can be translated “adulteresses”. The passage shows the two as women because they represent the bride of Christ. In other places they are referred to as two sisters, Aholibah and Aholah (Ezekiel 23). These are not angels, but they represent the spirit of the two parts of Israel.

One indication that there are no females in the kingdom of heaven is found in the fact that the angels came down to earth to take women as wives (Genesis 6:1-5). They had to come to earth because there were no women in heaven. The scriptures tell us that when we are resurrected we will be neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, male or female. (Galatians 3:28). Another scripture (Matthew 22:30) tells us that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but that we will be as the angels in heaven. These scriptures clearly indicate that there will not be two genders in heaven, but the question as to why still must be answered. Why do angels not marry? Why are there no females in heaven? This does not mean that women will not go to heaven; it simply means that when we are saved we become a new creature (II Corinthians 5:17), and the new creatures are male and not female.

You can read the full article here:
urbanpioneering.com/Volum…mininemain.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Traditionally women have been viewed as being inferior in virtually all respects. Specifically the physical, intellectual, and spiritiual areas.
The debate over women’s spiritual nature could get particularly nasty.

Here’s a recent (extreme) example to show what I am talking about:

Heaven has no Feminine Side

By Pastor Robert L Davis

There are some amazing things that saints do not realize about the heavenly kingdom that awaits us. One of the amazing things is that there are no females in heaven. This is a fact that has been overlooked by many, partly because we simply assumed that men would go to heaven as men, and women would go to heaven as women. This is not the case. Based on the scriptures there is no feminine being in the kingdom of God. Moreover, I have found that, based upon the knowledge of God’s intentions for man, that there do not exist any female beings within the spiritual realms, very possibly, females exist only in this particular creation. This may seem a startling statement, but the scriptures and the understanding of God’s plan, bears this out. One thing must be pointed out, lest the fairer sex take offense, and that is the fact that women are a unique creation of God and men on this earth are probably the only beings blessed with their presence.

Before I present the scriptural support for this fact, I first ask you to consider all of the occasions in the bible that involve angels or heavenly beings. In every instance, the beings are male and not female. All of the angels mentioned, Gabriel, Michael, Satan, Apollyon, and Beelzebub are all male. The angels around the throne have the heads of various beasts and the head of a man. All encounters with spiritual creatures have revealed them to be male, without exception. There is one passage that can be confusing if not understood properly, and that passage is in Zechariah five. Here it mentions two women that have the wings of storks. In this instance, they refer to the angel as male and the others as two women. The two women in this instance are not heavenly creatures but they represent Judah (Jerusalem) and Israel (Sammaria). The word for women in this event can be translated “adulteresses”. The passage shows the two as women because they represent the bride of Christ. In other places they are referred to as two sisters, Aholibah and Aholah (Ezekiel 23). These are not angels, but they represent the spirit of the two parts of Israel.

One indication that there are no females in the kingdom of heaven is found in the fact that the angels came down to earth to take women as wives (Genesis 6:1-5). They had to come to earth because there were no women in heaven. The scriptures tell us that when we are resurrected we will be neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free, male or female. (Galatians 3:28). Another scripture (Matthew 22:30) tells us that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but that we will be as the angels in heaven. These scriptures clearly indicate that there will not be two genders in heaven, but the question as to why still must be answered. Why do angels not marry? Why are there no females in heaven? This does not mean that women will not go to heaven; it simply means that when we are saved we become a new creature (II Corinthians 5:17), and the new creatures are male and not female.

You can read the full article here:
urbanpioneering.com/Volum…mininemain.htm

Incredible and evil lunacy!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Feminism is a lie.

**In discussion & debate I’m characteristically open and willing to entertain potential truth in a pretty wide range of ideas, often foreign, suspicious, or overtly hostile ones; but this is one of a few theories that I refuse to tolerate, even just intellectually, any longer. I have nothing but contempt for Feminism (along with anything else positively associated with Leftism/Political Correctness). **Whenever I spot anything at all sympathetic toward it, whether it’s via the philosophical standard version or one of many plausibly-deniable, PR-friendly variations thereof, I will precisely do my part to expose it and exterminate it. (And I will be no more obliging to this rising “Third Wave” ******** that simultaneously disguises and purports to repair all those embarrassing damages from the “Second Wave”.)

I pray to God that all strong Catholic men will begin doing the same – perhaps online; especially within their local communities, at least among their own parishes.

Sacred_Heart and LayingHands,

You are enabling a disastrous lie. Stop it.

If you spread your ideological disease inside the Holy Catholic Church any further than the culture at large has been vehemently dying to for decades now, then you will have to answer to God about it. I don’t care how noble your intentions may appear. Keep your worldly political wishes away from the Bride of Christ.

I didn’t notice it until now for some reason, but In Spiration contradicts himself in this post.

Claiming that he’s open-minded and reasonable, and then admitting (in the same paragraph) that he finds anything associated with the left-wing to be too distasteful (for him) to debate

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John
**
Radical feminists see all men as patriarchs who have developed an entire social structure that oppresses women. Marriage and the nuclear family, according to the radicals, are also oppressive to women and a male construct, so they have to be abolished. Feminism went a long way past striving for the vote and equal opportunities for women long ago. There are a few of these ‘nazi-feminists’ now teaching the young and impressionable minds of students in various universities around the world. **

I think of the Femi-Nazi branch of women’s lib as appropriately dubbed. The Nazis sought to kill the innocent … as many as they could. That is what the Femi-Nazis for abortion defend.

Since Roe v. Wade more than 50 million innocents executed to date … and climbing.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

We should take care in separating pagan morality from Christian morality- an enterprise the Church has been patiently and prudently undertaking for the last 2000 years. The current pagan mortality, under the auspices of modernism, argued that women were somehow deficient in social standing and they had “scientific” proofs to back this up- irrationality, short term thinking, and a whole other host of afflictions. This belief was nothing new, and the pernicious influence has been felt through history. But this has never been a part of the Christian ethic, and its reinforcement by the Enlightenment never made it more true. [As a quick aside, the very idea of rationality being an essence of being is an Enlightenment invention, as memory was driven out, and conscious became with synonomous with the Kantian ‘seat of critical judgment’…] It should be no surprise that what writers like Hume, Concordant, Schopanhauer and others wrote would not be conducive to dignity and equality that woman deserve.

We should not forget that it was men like Schopanhauer who wrote in “Of Women” (“Über die Weiber”,), that he was in opposition to what he called “Teutonico-Christian stupidity” on female affairs. He claimed that “woman is by nature are meant to obey” and he has wide ranging influence on 19th century thinking from Nietzsche to the feminists to the emerging science of the sexes.

This all flew right in the face of the equality the Church has long sought and equality between men and women written about by Saint Bonaventure. The Church worked long and hard to eliminate fornication (inequal and unjust sexual relations); concubinage, polygamy, bride-purchase and other violations of the justice of God.

As Miss Ansecombe wrote in her essay on contraceptives (an essay all Catholics should read,) "There always used to be a colossal strain in ancient times; between heathen morality and Christian morality, and one of the things pagan converts had to be told about the way they were entering on was that they must abstain from fornication. This peculiarity of the Christian life was taught in a precept issued by the Council of Jerusalem, the very first council of the Christian Church. The prohibition was issued in the same breath as the merely temporary retention of Judaic laws prohibiting the eating of blood - no black pudding! - and the prohibition on eating the flesh of animals that had been sacrificed to idols. And in one way these may have been psychologically the same sort of prohibition to a pagan convert. The Christian life simply imposed these peculiar restrictions on you. All the same the prohibition on fornication must have stood out; it must have meant a very serious change of life to many, as it would today. Christian life meant a separation from the standards of that world: you couldn’t be a Baal-worshipper, you couldn’t sacrifice to idols, be a sodomite, practice infanticide, compatibly with the Christian allegiance. That is not to say that Christians were good; we humans are a bad lot and our lives as Christians even if not blackly and grossly wicked are usually very mediocre. But the Catholic Christian badge now again means separation, even for such poor mediocrities, from what the unchristian world in the West approves and professes.

Christianity was at odds with the heathen world, not only about fornication, infanticide and idolatry; but also about marriage. Christians were taught that husband and wife had equal rights in one another’s bodies; a wife is wronged by her husband’s adultery as well as a husband by his wife’s. And Christianity involved non-acceptance of the contemptible role of the female partner in fornication, calling the prostitute to repentance and repudiating respectable concubinage. And finally for Christians divorce was excluded. These differences were the measure, great enough, of the separation between Christianity and the pagan world in these matters. By now, Christian teaching is, of course, known all over the world; and it goes without saying for those in the West that what they call “accepting traditional morals” means counting fornication as wrong - it’s just not a respectable thing. But we ought to be conscious that, like the objection to infanticide, this is a Jewish Christian inheritance. And we should realize that heathen humanity tends to have a different attitude towards both. In Christian teaching a value is set on every human life and on men’s chastity as well as on women’s and this as part of the ordinary calling of a Christian, not just in connexion with the austerity of monks. Faithfulness, by which a man turned only to his spouse, forswearing all other women, was counted as one of the great goods of marriage.

But the quarrel is far greater between Christianity and the present-day heathen, post Christian, morality that has sprung up as a result of contraception. In one word: Christianity taught that men ought to be as chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans thought men need be. "

the full essay can be read here: Contraception and Chastity

Further complicating matters is the transformation of traditionally recognized fatherhood roles from the man to the state. This has been an ongoing process for the last 200 years, and the 20 and 21st century feminists have been informed by these changes that came before and are reactionary to the facts on the ground.

So I wouldn’t go so far as to call them nazis but they are beknighted in the same ways that people living under ancient German law allowed for murder in family feuds. Feminists are supporting as much injustice as the old regime, and it is the mission of Christians to combat this with the same prudence and patience by words and deeds that the only true just relation are found in those abiding in Christ.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

We should take care in separating pagan morality from Christian morality- an enterprise the Church has been patiently and prudently undertaking for the last 2000 years.** The current pagan mortality, under the auspices of modernism, argued that women were somehow deficient in social standing **and they had “scientific” proofs to back this up- irrationality, short term thinking, and a whole other host of afflictions. This belief was nothing new, and the pernicious influence has been felt through history. But this has never been a part of the Christian ethic, and its reinforcement by the Enlightenment never made it more true. [As a quick aside, the very idea of rationality being an essence of being is an Enlightenment invention, as memory was driven out, and conscious became with synonomous with the Kantian ‘seat of critical judgment’…] It should be no surprise that what writers like Hume, Concordant, Schopanhauer and others wrote would not be conducive to dignity and equality that woman deserve.

We should not forget that it was men like Schopanhauer who wrote in “Of Women” (“Über die Weiber”,), that he was in opposition to what he called “Teutonico-Christian stupidity” on female affairs. He claimed that “woman is by nature are meant to obey” and he has wide ranging influence on 19th century thinking from Nietzsche to the feminists to the emerging science of the sexes.

This all flew right in the face of the equality the Church has long sought and equality between men and women written about by Saint Bonaventure. The Church worked long and hard to eliminate fornication (inequal and unjust sexual relations); concubinage, polygamy, bride-purchase and other violations of the justice of God.

.

Western women were deficient in social standing up til recently in historical terms.

For instance, in many American states married women had few legal rights and were essentially treated as minors (under the law). In fact, married working women in places like Texas didn’t even control their own wages (the money essentially belonged to their husbands, not them) (link to source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jsw02).

Things were often even worse in offiicially Catholic countries.
For example, up til the 1970s in Spain (a country where Catholicism was the official state religion) women couldn’t become a judge or even serve as a witness in court, and married women’s property rights were severely restricted too (link to source: seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003294566_spain08.html).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Christianity was at odds with the heathen world, not only about fornication, infanticide and idolatry; but also about marriage. Christians were taught that husband and wife had equal rights in one another’s bodies; a wife is wronged by her husband’s adultery as well as a husband by his wife’s. And Christianity involved non-acceptance of the contemptible role of the female partner in fornication, calling the prostitute to repentance and repudiating respectable concubinage. And finally for Christians divorce was excluded. These differences were the measure, great enough, of the separation between Christianity and the pagan world in these matters. By now, Christian teaching is, of course, known all over the world; and it goes without saying for those in the West that what they call “accepting traditional morals” means counting fornication as wrong - it’s just not a respectable thing. But we ought to be conscious that, like the objection to infanticide, this is a Jewish Christian inheritance. And we should realize that heathen humanity tends to have a different attitude towards both. In Christian teaching a value is set on every human life and on men’s chastity as well as on women’s and this as part of the ordinary calling of a Christian, not just in connexion with the austerity of monks. Faithfulness, by which a man turned only to his spouse, forswearing all other women, was counted as one of the great goods of marriage.

But the quarrel is far greater between Christianity and the present-day heathen, post Christian, morality that has sprung up as a result of contraception. In one word: Christianity taught that men ought to be as chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans thought men need be. "

the full essay can be read here: Contraception and Chastity

Further complicating matters is the transformation of traditionally recognized fatherhood roles from the man to the state. This has been an ongoing process for the last 200 years, and the 20 and 21st century feminists have been informed by these changes that came before and are reactionary to the facts on the ground.

So I wouldn’t go so far as to call them nazis but they are beknighted in the same ways that people living under ancient German law allowed for murder in family feuds. Feminists are supporting as much injustice as the old regime, and it is the mission of Christians to combat this with the same prudence and patience by words and deeds that the only true just relation are found in those abiding in Christ.

Then why has that almost never been the practice (legal or otherwise) in the area formerly known as Christendom?