N
Nimzovik
Guest
Yes. You delineated the spectrum of male behavior quite nicely.
- Status
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Hmmmmmmmmmmm… I wonder… If JPII were asked if he were a male- ist as well as being a feminist, would he deny the value of advocating for* both* sexes
It is hard for* me* to imagine the good Pope ignoring approximately 50% of his flock - yes?
T
thewanderer
Guest
Nimzovik, by saying he is a feminist that doesn’t mean he ignores the men. Just as you would probably take offense if someone told you you don’t care about women. Your focus on men is just as misleading as the term feminist as used by severus and JPII. Please understand that what some people mean by feminist is nothing other than equal rights for everyone no matter what their gender without trying to equate men and women and rid them of their masculinity and femininity.Hmmmmmmmmmmm… I wonder… If JPII were asked if he were a male- ist as well as being a feminist, would he deny the value of advocating for* both* sexes
It is hard for* me* to imagine the good Pope ignoring approximately 50% of his flock - yes?
H
Havard
Guest
Louts may be able to do boorish well enough all by themselves, but that isn’t where the story ends. There is such a thing as an enabler, and enablers are everywhere. Ask any fine single man or woman on CAF about what the majority of singles they’ve come across are looking for… both sexes are ever increasingly chasing entirely the wrong kinds of partners.
J
JimG
Guest
Interesting thoughts about men who refuse to grow up. It seems in some cases that adolescence has been extended into the 20’s and beyond. I wonder if that explains another phenomenon: it used to be that movies were based on books. Now, they’re often based on comic books.
J
JimG
Guest
I think your comments are pretty much on the mark.Yes, they have. How? By society tearing down everything that is male, and by replacing it, not with what is authentically female or feminine, but what is a caricature of what is male. So instead of anything male, we have feminized men and women who try to act like men, even though they are unable to fully pull it off. Feminism has been castigating men for every drive they have, for 50 years now. Several generations of men have grown up not even knowing what an authentic MAN is. And that’s the ones whose fathers are IN the home. The ones who grow up with only a mother and/or grandmother are in an even more difficult situation.
It makes me sad when I hear women state and actually believe, that “men have had their chance with the world, now it’s OUR chance, we’ll fix everything they’ve broken.”
Coincidence that tonight I just happened to be watching an old “Father Knows Best” episode. I’m getting to where I really enjoy those old shows. In this one the dad actually helped the teenage son who was struggling with a problem with a girl.
I suppose it would be impossible to make such programs any longer–sit-coms in which the dad acts like a dad, the mom acts like a mom, the kids are realistic and don’t make smart remarks every two seconds, and the family is normal.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Methinks it a mischaracterization to use the words “Your focus on men…” in terms of my perspective. I simply present an alternative perspective by presenting anomalies to the extant paradigm.
I do think it incumbent upon society, however, to reconsider terms employed today. Terms and words are thought - yes? And as the old saying goes - Beware your thoughts, for thoughts become deeds. Deeds become habit. Habit becomes character. And Character is destiny.
Let us think. I suggest we -** especially as Catholics** - need to divest ourselves of the term ‘Feminist.’ The word ‘Feminist’ is composed of meaning that is undeniably and strictly female oriented. Inview of this mindset that is subliminally suggested by this term we also have the* history* of Feminism, and it’s assault on Holy Mother Church. The assault via abortion advocacy:bigyikes:, contraception advocacy,* female* priests advocacy, the denegration of Fathers via Feminist nomenclature of ‘Bio daddy’ and ‘Donor Daddy’ etc., Feminism is certainly tainted, to say the very least. Indeed. Today organizations like N.O.W. are used by liberals to promote their anti Catholic agenda. Note too, that to NAFALT, that is to proclaim “Not All Feminists Are Like That” is for the very vast bulk of Feminism, simply not true.
So I ask Why should not Catholics be proud of their heritage? Certainly Catholicism has done way, way more to promote true femaleness as evidenced by the reverence for the Blessed Mother- yes? Catholicism has done* far* more through out the ages to protect and care for women than any ‘Feminist’ group. Why do we* not* credit ourselves? And by extension, our Faith?
Yes of course today people, Catholics included, use the term Feminist in knee jerk fashion as an equivalency term for advocating for fair treatment of women. They certainly mean nothing malicious by using the term. However! Here is what I am trying to convey to the masses. I simply assert that we - especially as Catholics should more be enlightened and aware and divest ourselves of the atrocities (such as abortion) associated with the term’ Feminist.’
When asked, do we support fair treatment for women our more enlightened response* should* be “Of course! I am a Catholic!!!”
See here for a relevant and well thought discussion catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0025.html
Am I making my point here?
Note as well. By being true to our faith, we will be un - wimpy-fying men too in the process!
Win - win as far as I can tell.
T
thewanderer
Guest
In other words you hate the word feminism because you mean a different thing than other people do by it. Precisely because you think it makes it look like one focuses on women too much. My point was your posts on this forum make it seem as though you focus on men too much. You should cut a little slack to JPII for using the term feminist. Yes it can be mistaken to imply that you only care about one gender, but so can your posts on this forum.Methinks it a mischaracterization to use the words “Your focus on men…” in terms of my perspective. I simply present an alternative perspective by presenting anomalies to the extant paradigm.
I do think it incumbent upon society however to reconsider terms employed today. Terms and words are thought. And as the old saying goes - Beware your thoughts, for thoughts become deeds. Deeds become habit. Habit becomes character. And Character is destiny.
Let us think. I suggest we -** especially as Catholics** - need to divest ourselves of the term Feminist. The word ‘Feminist’ is composed of meaning that is undeniably female. Indeed! Looking at the history of Feminism, and it’s assault on Holy Mother Church, via abortion advocacy:bigyikes:, contraception advocacy, female priests advocacy, etc., it is certainly tainted, to say the very least. Indeed. Today organizations like N.O.W. are used by liberals to promote their anti Catholic agenda. Why should not Catholics be proud of their heritage? Certainly Catholicism has done more to promote true femaleness as evidenced by the reverence for the Blessed Mother- yes? Catholicism has done* far* more through out the ages to protect and care for women than any ‘Feminist’ group. Why do we not credit ourselves? And by extension, our Faith?
Yes of course today people, Catholics included, use the term in knee jerk fashion as an equivalency term for advocating for fair treatment of women. They certainly mean nothing malicious by using the term. However here is what I am trying to convey to the masses. I simply assert that we - especially as Catholics should more be enlightened and aware and divest ourselves of the atrocities (such as abortion) associated with the term’ Feminist.’
When asked, do we support fair treatment for women our more enlightened response* should* be “Of course! I am a Catholic!!!”
See here for a relevant and well thought discussion catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0025.html
Am I making my point here?
Note as well. By being true to our faith, we will be un - wimpy-fying men too in the process!
Win - win as far as I can tell.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep sighhhhhhhhhh… first, I did not castigate JPII for his use of the term. I simply pointed out that JPII would advocate for men not being mistreated too.
Next. Yes I understand people mean different things when they employ the term. However I am asserting that in today’s buzz word media mind set, that it would be wise for Catholics to advocate for themselves by using the term ‘Catholic’ as a substitute and more accurate term for ‘advocate of Femaleness.’ The term Catholic* includes Men too!* Such a deal!!
Is that more clear for you?
Next. Yes I understand people mean different things when they employ the term. However I am asserting that in today’s buzz word media mind set, that it would be wise for Catholics to advocate for themselves by using the term ‘Catholic’ as a substitute and more accurate term for ‘advocate of Femaleness.’ The term Catholic* includes Men too!* Such a deal!!
Is that more clear for you?
T
thewanderer
Guest
But why did you feel the need to point out the JPII cared about men as well as women? The way you phrased it made it sound as though you believed that Severus was implying that JPII only cared about men. My point was that unless you are ok with people bringing up that you have to care about women too every time you want to talk about men’s issues then you have to show others the same courtesy. It is not wrong to talk about feminism or women’s issues in a positive light just as it is not wrong to talk about the men’s rights movement or men’s issues in a positive light. Like I said, I get it, you dislike the term feminist. But I see no problem with using it. Saying you are pro-feminist does not mean you are anti-men. Just like you talking about mens issues or saying you are pro-men’s rights doesn’t mean you are anti-woman. It sounds petty to constantly bring up mens issues whenever womens are mentioned and vice versa. They are both important but that doesn’t mean it is wrong to use a term that is more focused on one or the other. Being feminist and pro-men’s rights are not contradictory, in fact they are complimentary. There is nothing wrong with either term.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
And here we simply must part ways. If you simply can not see the problem with the term Feminist and all it’s implications, especially after reading the linked article I provided, and Feminism’s rather dark history of association with abortion etc. then there is nothing more I feel I can do for you.
We will have to agree to disagree here.
As for the mentioned JPII issue, I am done with that. I feel I have made my point. If you do not, then that is your prerogative.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You were upset that he promulgated *Mulieris Dignitatem *and then didn’t feel a need to put out a similar document about men?Hmmmmmmmmmmm… I wonder… If JPII were asked if he were a male- ist as well as being a feminist, would he deny the value of advocating for* both* sexes
It is hard for* me* to imagine the good Pope ignoring approximately 50% of his flock - yes?
When the Pope can only be a man and can only be elected by a college of cardinals made up exclusively of men, and when he clearly articulates that it is impossible to ordain anyone but a man, it becomes necessary to delineate the particular dignity of the 50% of his flock that does not have the leadership role of deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, or Pope. He does not have to be “male-ist”, because the males in his church are not in the same position *within *the Church as women are. He needed to articulate the dignity of women so that the roles that are particular to men are not used as some kind of an excuse to exclude women from roles which by church teaching they may serve mankind and yet not depart from the divine plan.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think it is a mistake to abdicate the word “feminism” to people who subvert the word in the way you’re describing.
B
Byrnwiga
Guest
I find it interesting that this thread should show up a day after I read the article “The decline of fatherhood and the male identity crisis” on Psychology Today (psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/the-decline-fatherhood-and-the-male-identity-crisis).
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Interesting article. I find this snippet to be in tune with what many on this thread have been saying:
"…In a study of depictions of fathers in the best selling children’s picture books, researcher Suzanne M. Flannery Quinn concluded that of the 200 books analyzed, there were only 24 books where the father appears alone, and only 35 books where mother and father appear together. The author concludes, “because fathers are not present or prominent in a large number of these books, readers are given only a narrow set of images and ideas from which they can construct an understanding of the cultural expectations of fatherhood and what I means to be a father.”
It is clearly discernible that Fathers are indeed in trouble.
So this brings me to ask another related question: “Do we need a type of Affirmative Action plan for Fathers?” What could we do to revive the true male role in the family?
"…In a study of depictions of fathers in the best selling children’s picture books, researcher Suzanne M. Flannery Quinn concluded that of the 200 books analyzed, there were only 24 books where the father appears alone, and only 35 books where mother and father appear together. The author concludes, “because fathers are not present or prominent in a large number of these books, readers are given only a narrow set of images and ideas from which they can construct an understanding of the cultural expectations of fatherhood and what I means to be a father.”
It is clearly discernible that Fathers are indeed in trouble.
So this brings me to ask another related question: “Do we need a type of Affirmative Action plan for Fathers?” What could we do to revive the true male role in the family?
N
Nimzovik
Guest
I accept that as your opinion.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
See post 51.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I did. The post I’m referring to still doesn’t make any sense to me. Having said that, in saying that the problem is larger than just attacks on fathers, I don’t want to deny your point that fathers are being attacked. I don’t think that having a father be the target of comedy is the problem so much as the absence of fathers who placed in contrast. I think you’re right about that. The comedy writers don’t want to write praiseworthy people into their scripts, but hesitate to attack people’s mothers too much. People complain that “no one is like that”, that creates false expectations for family life–you know, the old “nobody has parents like the Cleavers”. I think that concern has been pandered to far beyond help or use, absolutely.
It has been historically true that insulting a man’s father is bad, but attacking his mother is even worse, so mothers of children still get a some nods to their virtue. Mothers of adults, however, are every bit as much open game to the comedy writers as fathers are in general.
It occurred to me on thinking that the Latin word for man is “vir” that what is under attack is not so much men only but virtue.
I do not mind that bad behavior by men is under attack, and I do not think that virtuous men mind that foolish or cruel behavior in men is shown for the foolishness or cruelty that it is. When it is done to females–when the comedy is that the mean or cruel women get their come-uppance–I don’t think anyone minds that, either.
What is the problem is when a) characters with the virtues that exemplify their gender are simply not written, as if such people do not exist and when b) people in places of authority are made out to be incompetent and worthy of contempt, and it is true that this is particularly done to fathers. IOW, do think that men have a particular complaint to make with regards to how much of a beating that married men and the fathers of intact families are getting.
The issue even from the standpoint of the most liberal secularists ought to be a self-examination of what happens when poking fun at fatherhood becomes such a cliché as to be systemic in comedy. The greatest predictor of poverty in a home with children is the lack of a father. Likewise, men who are married and especially men with children are statistically more likely to work harder and produce more than they did before they were married. The children of men in intact marriages are less likely to be incarcerated, have children out of wedlock, and so on. So even the most ardent atheist ought to be concerned about it when comedy targets married men. Yes, takes its toll when every comedic school principal is a buffoon, when the police are buffoons, when the people in politics are all buffoons, but of all the authority figures that ought not be subjected to a treatment in which the virtuous, praiseworthy, and competent example–that is, to put it bluntly, the example worthy of respect and imitation–is conspicuously absent, it is fathers.
And yes, that is the difference: not that examples of less-than exemplary mothers don’t exist in comedy, but the extent to which exemplary fathers have been banished from “light” entertainment. Barney Fife didn’t do any harm, but that was because there was an Andy Griffith on the show. Take the virtuous characters out of that show, and that makes all the difference.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
It doesn’t actually say that the other books include only mothers. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least half of the books simply don’t include parents at all.
However, I think it’s reasonable to say that as far as media goes, we need to depict parents and especially fathers as being more dependable beings that children can rely on. However, we shouldn’t be surprised if people say this doesn’t ring true for them, since it quite frankly doesn’t mesh with reality.
I don’t know what an “Affirmative Action plan for Fathers” could possibly entail. Isn’t affirmative action to help people go to school and find jobs? That doesn’t seem to be the problem that dads are facing.
Continuing with the media discussion, I think married protagonists of either gender are becoming scarce- I don’t think I could name even ten, and most of them wouldn’t be from truly modern works. It’s parents in general that are being attacked, although it may be that fathers are getting hit harder. Perhaps we just need more positively portrayed protagonists that are married parents.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
There is also the fairytale dilemma, which I explained to my kids when they were young to let them know why the mother so often dies in fairytales.It doesn’t actually say that the other books include only mothers. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least half of the books simply don’t include parents at all.
However, I think it’s reasonable to say that as far as media goes, we need to depict parents and especially fathers as being more dependable beings that children can rely on. However, we shouldn’t be surprised if people say this doesn’t ring true for them, since it quite frankly doesn’t mesh with reality.
I don’t know what an “Affirmative Action plan for Fathers” could possibly entail. Isn’t affirmative action to help people go to school and find jobs? That doesn’t seem to be the problem that dads are facing.
Continuing with the media discussion, I think married protagonists of either gender are becoming scarce- I don’t think I could name even ten, and most of them wouldn’t be from truly modern works. It’s parents in general that are being attacked, although it may be that fathers are getting hit harder. Perhaps we just need more positively portrayed protagonists that are married parents.
Children’s stories are often about children acting in bold or independent ways. If you look back at many fairytales, you realize that children who had good parents would have to be quite naughty to even get into such serious situations in the first place. If Hansel and Gretel’s parents hadn’t abandoned them in the forest, after all, then the audience would not have a lot of sympathy for their plight, because they would be foolish little twerps who wouldn’t have their troubles if they had been good children. In order to create a situation where the child is forced to take an independent role, the author has to eliminate or hogtie the parents somehow.
That is not what is happening in the entertainment where the fathers are made out to be uniform in their incompetence, with the only variation being the particular collection of character flaws and personal failures they exhibit.
- Status