Have Dads been wimpy- fied?

[Kamaduck]

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.

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.

That’s true, it takes a really big crisis to get a good kid into the kind of trouble necessary for a good story. But I still think there should be more adult, married protagonists. Why are they all children and single people nowadays?

For the issue at hand, maybe we are dealing with two different-but-connected issues in reality and media.

In reality, many children are growing up in single-parent homes, or with parents who are emotionally distant. Both of these problems seem to be more common for fathers than for mothers. This could be fed by a media-induced image of fatherhood as useless.

In medialand, fathers who ARE present in their children’s lives are shown to be weak, incompetent, and useless (moreso than mothers). This is rarely challenged because many people already believe that real-life fathers (who may have abandoned them or are emotionally distant) are “useless”. So we get an generalized sense that all men who father children, whether they stick around or not, are useless. We get something of a vicious cycle- art responds to reality, and reality responds to art.

And I do think your posts make sense, too. (You always put things really well, Easterjoy. ) It’s not so much that people poke fun at fathers, but that they are never praised (or depicted as praiseworthy to begin with). We get a situation where all fathers are worthy of ridicule, so we associate that ridicule with fatherhood itself.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s true, it takes a really big crisis to get a good kid into the kind of trouble necessary for a good story. But I still think there should be more adult, married protagonists. Why are they all children and single people nowadays?

For the issue at hand, maybe we are dealing with two different-but-connected issues in reality and media.

In reality, many children are growing up in single-parent homes, or with parents who are emotionally distant. Both of these problems seem to be more common for fathers than for mothers. This could be fed by a media-induced image of fatherhood as useless.

In medialand, fathers who ARE present in their children’s lives are shown to be weak, incompetent, and useless (moreso than mothers). This is rarely challenged because many people already believe that real-life fathers (who may have abandoned them or are emotionally distant) are “useless”. So we get an generalized sense that all men who father children, whether they stick around or not, are useless. We get something of a vicious cycle- art responds to reality, and reality responds to art.

And I do think your posts make sense, too. (You always put things really well, Easterjoy. ) It’s not so much that people poke fun at fathers, but that they are never praised (or depicted as praiseworthy to begin with). We get a situation where all fathers are worthy of ridicule, so we associate that ridicule with fatherhood itself.

The main complaint, if you consider comedy in general, is that the writers no longer want characters who are too perfect. There was a complaint that the parents in some of the old comedies were unrealistic cardboard cut-outs. That is all fine and good, but I think the Tim Allen character (who really is a good father, in the whole) in contrast to the Bill Cosby character, went a bit too far over the top.

My other pet peeve, of course, is that families in modern comedies are essentially always secular. Remember in the old days, when the shows all had the “token” member of the cast who was black or Asian or whatnot? I’d even go for the token friend whose family always goes to church. Something. Anything. The problem with this, however, is that the networks don’t want to deal with the mail from a depiction of religion that hits someone the wrong way, which it always does, and so it is left out. The impression given is that not only do families not need fathers, but that families do not need religion. The truth is, however, that the single mothers who cope the best when the father of the children is absent are those mothers who have the support of a church and the men who are in it as role models for their children.

My fear, OTOH, is that we are going to find ourselves longing for the days when there were any intact nuclear families on TV at all, let alone religiously-observant nuclear families, even ones being made fun of.

 

[Kamaduck]

The main complaint, if you consider comedy in general, is that the writers no longer want characters who are too perfect. There was a complaint that the parents in some of the old comedies were unrealistic cardboard cut-outs. That is all fine and good, but I think the Tim Allen character (who really is a good father, in the whole) in contrast to the Bill Cosby character, went a bit too far over the top.

My other pet peeve, of course, is that families in modern comedies are essentially always secular. Remember in the old days, when the shows all had the “token” member of the cast who was black or Asian or whatnot? I’d even go for the token friend whose family always goes to church. Something. Anything. The problem with this, however, is that the networks don’t want to deal with the mail from a depiction of religion that hits someone the wrong way, which it always does, and so it is left out. The impression given is that not only do families not need fathers, but that families do not need religion. The truth is, however, that the single mothers who cope the best when the father of the children is absent are those mothers who have the support of a church and the men who are in it as role models for their children.

My fear, OTOH, is that we are going to find ourselves longing for the days when there were any intact nuclear families on TV at all, let alone religiously-observant nuclear families, even ones being made fun of.

I don’t really remember the “old days”, I’m basing my ideas if this stuff on old movies that my mom likes. But I do see what you’re saying.

I do think this is all part of the bigger problem of attacking nuclear families. And attacking fathers is really not so much attacking men instead of women, but attacking healthy families and healthy people. It’s not that women are being built up instead of men; everyone is being torn down.

I don’t really watch that much comedy, but from what I remember, dads in comedies are incompetent, and dads in dramas are missing (either physically or emotionally). Those depictions also extend to mothers, but not as much.

I do think it is sad that the prevailing attitude in comedy is that people must be awful human beings to be funny. That’s why I don’t watch it anymore… I can’t enjoy a show if I hate all of the characters. If it continues like this, we’ll probably continue to become more cynical than we already are, and each subsequent generation will lose more and more sense that good people even exist.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t really remember the “old days”, I’m basing my ideas if this stuff on old movies that my mom likes. But I do see what you’re saying.

I do think this is all part of the bigger problem of attacking nuclear families. And attacking fathers is really not so much attacking men instead of women, but attacking healthy families and healthy people. It’s not that women are being built up instead of men; everyone is being torn down.

I don’t really watch that much comedy, but from what I remember, dads in comedies are incompetent, and dads in dramas are missing (either physically or emotionally). Those depictions also extend to mothers, but not as much.

I do think it is sad that the prevailing attitude in comedy is that people must be awful human beings to be funny. That’s why I don’t watch it anymore… I can’t enjoy a show if I hate all of the characters. If it continues like this, we’ll probably continue to become more cynical than we already are, and each subsequent generation will lose more and more sense that good people even exist.

I think that men are being torn down more than women, but that is probably because a) there is still widespread respect for the mothers with children in school age or younger (all bets are off when your children are grown) and b) the mothers are more likely to be the ones who exert a veto over the television that kids watch (which, come to think of it, may be why the mothers of the adults don’t get the protection that the other mothers do!)

My kids watch ESPN. The men aren’t all role models, but a lot of the commentators who are former athletes are still very vocal about what makes a good teammate. Team sports are still a place that very obviously require healthy versions of the masculine virtues to achieve the greatest level of praiseworthiness–and that goes for both males and females! It is a place where many men who pursue excellence are unabashed about asserting the pre-eminence of God in their lives. Besides, I’m quite sure it has something to do with the situation that my boys are quite willing to wear a suit and a tie to church!! (I do think they’d like to do without the Cialis commercials, though.)

 

[Kamaduck]

I think that men are being torn down more than women, but that is probably because a) there is still widespread respect for the mothers with children in school age or younger (all bets are off when your children are grown) and b) the mothers are more likely to be the ones who exert a veto over the television that kids watch (which, come to think of it, may be why the mothers of the adults don’t get the protection that the other mothers do!)

My kids watch ESPN. The men aren’t all role models, but a lot of the commentators who are former athletes are still very vocal about what makes a good teammate. Team sports are still a place that very obviously require healthy versions of the masculine virtues to achieve the greatest level of praiseworthiness–and that goes for both males and females! It is a place where many men who pursue excellence are unabashed about asserting the pre-eminence of God in their lives. Besides, I’m quite sure it has something to do with the situation that my boys are quite willing to wear a suit and a tie to church!! (I do think they’d like to do without the Cialis commercials, though.)

It makes sense that mothers with young kids would be the ones who would veto what kids watched, so that could be part of why there is a little more respect for them. I definitely think that fathers (although maybe not all men) are being depicted as incompetent more often than mothers. But I think that ultimately tears real-world women down, because there is a sense that mothers should be able to handle an entire household all on their own, without support. That kind of mentality is harmful in the real world, and that’s why I think everybody is ultimately being hurt. It manifests differently for men and for women, but ultimately everybody loses.

I mostly grew up on superhero and action cartoons, and a lot of times the kids were just sort of lost in the world, whether that world was scary or fun. Adults just weren’t a part of it (or, at best, had no role in the plot). Even with more “realistic” fantasy shows like Avatar, there are a lot of orphans and missing or disconnected parents. Reasonable authority figures exist, but they can’t offer much more than a little advice every now and then. I didn’t notice any tearing down of one parent more than another, just a distinct lack of adults. Some of that is because the shows center around children, but I think some of it is also because children feel like they really are alone in the world. I think there’s an attitude that adults in general aren’t dependable, and I don’t think it’s a baseless idea. Nuclear families are getting scarcer.

 

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I do not think that anyone here believes that women have not often been portrayed badly in the media. Certainly they have. I personally think that Fathers on TV and in real life (they have zero say when a woman chooses to kill the Father’s child Too via abortion) have been marginalized the most. Peoples can see the percentages however they wish of course. However I do not wish to debate* here *as to “whose got it worse.”

The thread title is "Have Dads been wimpy - fied"

I think many here would say they have indeed seen a trend in that regard.

So the next logical step is What do we do about it?

Certainly the "Male Shaming’ via the Feminists needs to be addressed. Certainly the curriculum of “Gender Studies” on college campuses needs to be scrutinized as well. Then of course we need to address the Media.

Perhaps endeavor to make anti - male terms like "Donor Daddy’ which denigrates Fathers horrifically, a Politically Incorrect term? Another term to address in the Media is “Dead Beat Dads” (classic public Male Shaming) which of course should of course be Dead Beat Parents. Perhaps we need to address the issue of the repeatedly seen on the movies a so called ‘humorous situation’ in which the male is kicked in the genitals. Why is that funny? Would the reverse be funny for women? Methinks not. Then of course there is the disparity in terms of Child Custody legal issues…

Another thing I think that should be prosecuted aggressively, but is relatively ignored, is Paternity Fraud. This would help Fathers as well methinks. A Father should have to pay for his *own *kid. The father of a child as a result of a secret affair by the mother should have to support his kid.

 

[Kamaduck]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I do not think that anyone here believes that women have not often been portrayed badly in the media. Certainly they have. I personally think that Fathers on TV and in real life (they have zero say when a woman chooses to kill the Father’s child Too via abortion.) However I do not wish to debate* here*as to “whose got it worse.” The thread title is “Have Dads been wimpy - fied”

I’m not trying to say either gender “has it worse”, just that this trend affects everybody and it’s not only hurting dads. And offering possible explanations, since the problem doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I’m not too sure what “wimpy-fied” means.

Certainly the "Male Shaming’ via the Feminists needs to be addressed.

I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about. I’ve never seen any feminists shame people just for being male, they’re generally really against shaming anybody who isn’t hurting others. The only ones who actually hate men are reeeeeeeeeally radical and nobody listens to them.

Perhaps endeavor to make anti - male terms like "Donor Daddy’ which denigrates Fathers horrifically, a Politically Incorrect term? Another term to address in the Media is “Dead Beat Dads” (classic public Male Shaming) which of course should of course be Dead Beat Parents.

Sure… But I have to say, I don’t see those terms nearly as much as I see various female-specific insults. I don’t think they are as big of a problem as female-specific insults.

Perhaps we need to address the issue of the repeatedly seen on the movies a so called ‘humorous situation’ in which the male is kicked in the genitals. Why is that funny? Would the reverse be funny for women? Methinks not.

Slapstick has always been male-specific. Personally, I don’t care for it, since seeing people get hurt makes me sad for them. But that’s really all it is; hitting girls ANYWHERE is un-funny and always has been.

Then of course there is the disparity in terms of Child Custody legal issues…

Men don’t seek custody as often as women. I hear that when they do, they get custody 50% of the time or more.

 

[Walking_Home]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I do not think that anyone here believes that women have not often been portrayed badly in the media. Certainly they have. I personally think that Fathers on TV and in real life (they have zero say when a woman chooses to kill the Father’s child Too via abortion) have been marginalized the most. Peoples can see the percentages however they wish of course. However I do not wish to debate* here *as to “whose got it worse.”

The thread title is "Have Dads been wimpy - fied"

I think many here would say they have indeed seen a trend in that regard.

So the next logical step is What do we do about it?

Certainly the "Male Shaming’ via the Feminists needs to be addressed. Certainly the curriculum of “Gender Studies” on college campuses needs to be scrutinized as well. Then of course we need to address the Media.

Perhaps endeavor to make anti - male terms like "Donor Daddy’ which denigrates Fathers horrifically, a Politically Incorrect term? Another term to address in the Media is “Dead Beat Dads” (classic public Male Shaming) which of course should of course be Dead Beat Parents. Perhaps we need to address the issue of the repeatedly seen on the movies a so called ‘humorous situation’ in which the male is kicked in the genitals. Why is that funny? Would the reverse be funny for women? Methinks not. Then of course there is the disparity in terms of Child Custody legal issues…

Another thing I think that should be prosecuted aggressively, but is relatively ignored, is Paternity Fraud. This would help Fathers as well methinks. A Father should have to pay for his *own *****kid. The father of a child as a result of a secret affair by the mother should have to support his kid.

---

Without condoning in any way or form adultery – but this is the same type of mentality that is used by the pro-abortion bunch. A child consider like a parasite – using up resources from the host – therefore the host aborts the child. This is saying a man should “abort” the child – because of DNA.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I do not think that anyone here believes that women have not often been portrayed badly in the media. Certainly they have. I personally think that Fathers on TV and in real life (they have zero say when a woman chooses to kill the Father’s child Too via abortion) have been marginalized the most. Peoples can see the percentages however they wish of course. However I do not wish to debate* here *as to “whose got it worse.”

The thread title is "Have Dads been wimpy - fied"

I think many here would say they have indeed seen a trend in that regard.

So the next logical step is What do we do about it?

Certainly the "Male Shaming’ via the Feminists needs to be addressed. Certainly the curriculum of “Gender Studies” on college campuses needs to be scrutinized as well. Then of course we need to address the Media.

Perhaps endeavor to make anti - male terms like "Donor Daddy’ which denigrates Fathers horrifically, a Politically Incorrect term? Another term to address in the Media is “Dead Beat Dads” (classic public Male Shaming) which of course should of course be Dead Beat Parents. Perhaps we need to address the issue of the repeatedly seen on the movies a so called ‘humorous situation’ in which the male is kicked in the genitals. Why is that funny? Would the reverse be funny for women? Methinks not. Then of course there is the disparity in terms of Child Custody legal issues…

Another thing I think that should be prosecuted aggressively, but is relatively ignored, is Paternity Fraud. This would help Fathers as well methinks. A Father should have to pay for his *own *kid. The father of a child as a result of a secret affair by the mother should have to support his kid.

Wow. You have a lot going on there.

Yes, when the non-custodial parent is a woman, she is actually more likely to fail to pay her court-ordered child support than her male counterpart. This may be because it takes a higher level of irresponsibility in a mother than in a father to lose custody. That is the truth, and it is unjust. This is particularly true when the children are in adolescence, because fathers are very important to adolescent development.

You’ll have to tell me why it is funny when a fellow takes a hit to his privates. Adolescent boys seem to think this is hysterical. Go figure, but the comedy writers know it gets a laugh. The parallel would be a female having her private parts exposed against her intention–by anatomy it simply does not hurt a woman to anything like a parallel degree to be hit there, or anywhere else–but the censors won’t allow that.

I think, however, that the “male shaming” followed what truly is some shameful behavior. It is not just feminists who are upset by that behavior, but also other men who expect so much more of other men who have become fathers. As for the term “sperm donor”, the first time I heard it was from a young woman who was abused by her father–that is, when he was actually around. I can’t imagine correcting her, because that man made her life a living hell. That was probably the most polite thing she could think of to call him. I wish his type were more rare.

That is the thing…that is, the man who fathers children outside of wedlock and then disappears is not rare. We used to shame the mother left to raise her children alone, and that was absolutely wrong, especially since the passage of Roe v. Wade has given her an horrific but very private way to escape that shaming. What we need, though, is a way to encourage the fathers to stay around, instead of protesting when they are shamed because they don’t stay around.

Not to open another can of worms, but it is also part of the gay marriage lobby to deny the uniqueness that each gender brings to parenting. If both the man and the woman in a heterosexual couple provides something vital to a child, then that makes marriage between a man and a woman more obviously unique. The gay marriage lobby doesn’t want that. They want to pretend that two adults are two adults, and whether or not they are complementary or even whether or not they can possibly procreate could not be less important. That lobby wants to idealize the effeminate man or the woman who does not need a masculine man.

 

[WhisperingWind]

I don’t know that wimpy-fied is the best word but there certainly is an ongoing assault on the character of the male person and feminism is to blame for much of it. The suffix -ism means forming nouns of action, state, condition, and doctrine in Latin. The femin part undeniably references the female person. Putting that together we get the “female doctrine.” There is nothing for the male in the “female doctrine” and when a doctrine becomes institutionalized indoctrination is not far off. Look at how feminism has impacted negatively and often by outright misleading. Read Christina Hoff Sommers book on “The War Against Boys.” She cites specific studies where the American Association for University Women outright fabricated studies showing there was a “girl crisis” when there really wasn’t. Yet, the government opened the purse strings and poured tons of money into girls education.

Now that boys are suffering much worse than girls were claimed to have suffered where is the EQUALITY? Why isn’t the government paying attention to boys issues? The problem with feminism is it uses the few good things it did (equal pay, voting rights, etc) as cover for ALL the bad it has done. If one was to use a metric and apply the so-called “equality” they preach you would find the movement is one big hypocrisy. The truth is feminists simply don’t care to actually do anything for boys when they are in dire need. They are great at paying lip service but that’s it. When Warren Farrell tried to hold a talk on boys issues in Canada the feminists protested. When he tried to start a White House Council on Boys to Men he was denied when a corresponding council for women was already present. These are the fruits of feminism and by the fruits we will know them. Mattew 7:16

On whole feminsm has done more harm than good. That is not to say credit shouldn’t be given for the good but overall it has become as our Pope Francis said “A philosophy of constant feminism doesn’t give the woman the dignity she deserves. … It runs the risk of becoming machismo in skirts.” He just forgot that the same constant philosophy makes no room for men to define masculinity as women have defined femininity.

There is a whole site (www.husbandbashing.com) for women to voice their hatred for their husbands. No such counter part exists for men. Why? Because we know it is counter productive. We know we have to take responsibility for our choice in who we marry instead of broadcasting it on the internet for strangers to feed off of.

The simple fact is today’s men don’t feel respected by women. Men need that respect (as human beings created in Gods image - fundamental dignity) like women need love / appreciation (freely given by God). Everything has become a materialistic competition of who gets more props for their career, who brings home the bacon, and who gets the scorn for not doing what one thinks is enough. Fatherless homes pre-feminism were uncommon but not unheard of. Post-feminism fatherless homes are quite common. I don’t think women realize how much their words cut into a man because we are told to never express weakness. Cut our hearts out and everything you rely on us to do is going to fail. Rather than engage in constructive dialogue all feminists want to do is wax poetry about how bad men are. Ever hear a feminist from NOW or the AAUW say anything good about men? Ever hear a feminist actually lobby the government to do something good for men? NOW could have supported Warren Farrel’s effort and the AAUW could have supported Christina Sommers but no such chance. They aren’t just “a few radicals” as they are ENTIRE organizations that boast sizable but decreasing membership.

I’m sorry but those “feminists” who say they love men and all need to find a new descriptor IMO. There comes a point sometimes when something is so badly broken and marred that you need to replace it. I can sympathize that many women want to unite together for appreciation of their gender but feminism blew its opportunity. You can be for voting rights, owning property, equal pay, and not be a feminist. That is where I am at. I hear some people are using the term egalitarian or complementarian now.

Also, what support does society give fathers? You always hear about single moms but what about single dads? They do exist and if you ask any of them they feel greatly ignored by society. Mothers have TONS of support and built systems that men do not have access to (Mommy and Me). When society takes an interest in dads and say they matter men will feel empowered to be dads. Until then it will be more business as usual.

 

[Nimzovik]

My time is limited today.

Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of ‘Male Shaming.’
The term Male Shaming is a term (especially in the public arena ) that in todays urban dictionary refers to a tactic *designed *by Feminists for purposes of furthering their agenda.

Examples are replete in gender studies and the media.

Remember when feminists posted the names of all college campus males with the title of ‘Potential Rapist’ in attendance? Dead Beat Dads is just another tactic that is a term engendered by the Feminists as well. Where is the Political correctness in all this? Why is that ok to attach a behavior to just one gender? Stereotyping at it’s worst.

For more Feminist machinations I would suggest you go to youtube and search** Girl Writes** What.

‘Male Disposability’ is another term it is wise to familiarize one’s self with.

A caution tho-. She speaks plainly and may employ terms you may not be comfortable with.

 

[october_baby]

OK, but don’t you think the main character has become the buffoon while the side-kick is the straight man? When Tim would make a stupid remark on-camera, Al Borland would pick up a sign with Tim’s mailing address and say, “That’s Tim Taylor, care of Tool Time, PO Box…” Tim’s wife was sensible and competent, his side-kick was sensible and competent, and the main character was the one always getting himself into trouble. As far as Ray goes, his wife got into as many silly situations as he did. The whole cast was the “funny side kick”.

The stars don’t want to be the straight man any more. The leaders want to be seen as “just like folks”. I have called every US presidential election since Carter vs. Reagan by asking this question: Who would the average voter *get the impression *they would rather have a beer with?

Carter vs. Reagan: Clearly Reagan
Bush vs. Dukakis: OK, c’mon. Bush
Bush vs. Clinton: Clinton
Clinton vs. Dole: Clinton (because people didn’t get Dole’s sense of humor, IMHO)
Gore vs. Bush: Bush…it’s surprising the election was so close
Kerry vs. Bush: Bush, not even close
Obama vs. McCain: Somehow McCain lost his approachability, but he looked like a grouchy old man next to Obama. I don’t get how, but he just did.

Now why, you might ask, does the leader of the free world have to seem approachable, of all things? When on earth will anyone ever get to approach him? Why would he have to seem “just like folks”? Yet tell me that given the choice between a glad hander with dodgy integrity like Clinton or someone else just as wonky and competent who’s stiff but has impeccable integrity that Mr. I-Feel-Your-Pain wouldn’t win. Is there any character flaw more fatal in politics than not seeming “friendly” enough? WHY? Of all the many qualities a statesman has to have, where did a false front of friendliness become one of them?

We’re getting the comedic characters that the medium of television makes appealing, which is to say intimate and rather small. That’s what I’m afraid of, anyway.

You can rationalize all you want too. Nimozvik had an EXCELLENT point about how the
media and Hollywood portray men in general and married men in particular And your
political commentary is painfully naive…

 

[october_baby]

Yep, most TV shows don’t portray women as talking about anything but men and appearances with each other, while men discuss everything amongst themselves. That’s why bridesmaids was so refreshing.

But really, who cares? I don’t care if most of the time women are sex object bimbos on TV because I’m not, and the women in my life aren’t, and if I don’t like the show I can choose not to watch it. Same for men. I have many wonderful, strong men in my life, and I’m marrying the most wonderful and strongest of all. Peter Griffin’s debacle of the week doesn’t matter to me and has no bearing on my life.

What Peter Griffin debacle?

 

[october_baby]

You were upset that he promulgated *Mulieris Dignitatem *and then didn’t feel a need to put out a similar document about men?

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.

Because, the entire world (especially the United States) is not catholic.

 

[EasterJoy]

Because, the entire world (especially the United States) is not catholic.

Well, no, the entire world is not American, which is to say that not all women in the entire world have civil rights. Do you think that there is no reason for a Pope to be concerned with whether or not women in the universal church a) are being treated with dignity, b) whether or not women understand what their true dignity does and does not entail and c) whether or not the world knows that the Catholic Church does not have it out for women?

 

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I have just read your post 5 times and I am *still *unclear s to what exactly you are trying to convey.

 

[Nimzovik]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimzovik forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Certainly the "Male Shaming’ via the Feminists needs to be addressed.

**Kamaduck **I’m honestly not really sure what you’re talking about. I’ve never seen any feminists shame people just for being male, they’re generally really against shaming anybody who isn’t hurting others. The only ones who actually hate men are reeeeeeeeeally radical and nobody listens to them.

Nimzovik Responds

Ok here is the definition of “Male Shaming” via the Urban Dictionary.

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Feminist%20Shaming%20Tactics

Here are some stellar examples:

‘Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.’
— Catherine Comins, Vassar College,
Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” –Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” --** Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)**

Note the Democrat connection in the above quote!!

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”** – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.**

Have I made my point yet? I have many, many more.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… I have just read your post 5 times and I am *still *unclear s to what exactly you are trying to convey.

I’m trying to defend Bl. John Paul II from attacks on his choice of the word “feminist” to describe himself. I somehow doubt he did it out of naivety.

The naïve one was me. Who on earth thinks they can talk a 21st century American out of their sense that they are in a group that is unique in its victimization? That’s the fool’s end of that kind of debate, if ever there was one.

 

[october_baby]

Well, no, the entire world is not American, which is to say that not all women in the entire world have civil rights. Do you think that there is no reason for a Pope to be concerned with whether or not women in the universal church a) are being treated with dignity, b) whether or not women understand what their true dignity does and does not entail and c) whether or not the world knows that the Catholic Church does not have it out for women?

My point is, is that only in the US and Europe do males get bashed. The catholic church does not preach EQUALITY of the sexes, as much as the COMPATIBILITY of the sexes.
The rest of world does not understand this, because it is not catholic.
BTW, neither I nor Nimzovic are advocating for sharia law for the US and Europe, we are advocating a more balanced outlook from our opinion makers.

 

[Nimzovik]

I’m trying to defend Bl. John Paul II from attacks on his choice of the word “feminist” to describe himself. I somehow doubt he did it out of naivety.

The naïve one was me. Who on earth thinks they can talk a 21st century American out of their sense that they are in a group that is unique in its victimization? That’s the fool’s end of that kind of debate, if ever there was one.

There simply was no personal attack on JPII. Sheeeeeeeeeeesh. Re- read the post in question. Please.