Men's Rights and the Catholic Church

[Crescentinus]

Yes MGTOW is highly seperatist. Is it entirely by choice tho? Methinks much of the MGTOW faction is a move of frustration. Frustration with what seuclar women have become. Frustration with haveing their children aborted or denied to them. Frustrated with the slanted, precarious position they just might find themselves in in terms of false dometic violence and rape allegations. Frustrated by being bankrupted by a biased legal system in terms of child custody and lawyers. Frustrated by Paternity Fraud not being recognized as the crime it is. Frustrated with having to pay child support fpor a child that was never even his to begin with, and being thrown into Debtors Prison at the whims of an ex - wife if unable to pay the support.

Methinks much of the MGTOW crowd would love to have a woman -with the proviso that said woman would be a decent person. Methinks MGTOW would be happy with a Catholic woman. Methinks there is indeed fertile ground here for the evangelizing Catholic.

Unfortunately, with so many Catholic women (and Gasp! men too! Oh no!) accepting the Feminist Label, it is understandable why the MGTOW people would be confused. Indeed. Are today’s Catholic women trully Catholic? Welllllllllllllllll… Given the number of women that ‘claim’ to be Catholic, yet use contraception, wellllllllllllllllll. One must wonder eh?

Both the separatist feminist and the MGTOW positions are based in frustration.
The only difference is that separatist feminism is older than MGTOW. I understand the MGTOW position is indeed borne out of frustration. I am with them as far as the frustrations are concerned. However, there’s a better way in approaching the problems rather than leaving society altogether. It would be best if the MGTOWs decided to find alternatives to leaving society because finding solutions to the frustrations which does not involve leaving society can anger the lesbian feminists and the radical feminists.

I agree with you. The MGTOWs are a fertile ground for evangelization and learning about the Catholic position about both men’s rights as well as feminism.

The reason why some orthodox (yes, small letter o) Catholics accept the feminist label is because they are doing that to protest the evils caused by radical feminism. In effect, they want feminism to be cleansed of the problems (such as radical feminism and lesbian feminism) that plague feminism.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Please respond to the second part of my post where I said if you believe in equality you don’t have to be a feminist. As I said, black people didn’t create blackism or call themselves blackists to get get equal rights. They used a term everyone could unite under and it was genderless. It was called CIVIL RIGHTS.

Also, explain this article to me (huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/02/carla-bruni-apologizes-feminist-feminism_n_2227147.html). Why is when a woman renounces feminism she is made to apologize for it? Doesn’t she have free speech to speak her mind?

Maybe because as first Lady of France, she needed to be more “careful” in her speech. She isn’t just a regular person…her public speeches probably couldn’t have differed too much from what her husband’s political views were.

It seems to be public relations, not an actual censoring of views.

 

[Nimzovik]

Both the separatist feminist and the MGTOW positions are based in frustration.
The only difference is that separatist feminism is older than MGTOW. I understand the MGTOW position is indeed borne out of frustration. I am with them as far as the frustrations are concerned. However, there’s a better way in approaching the problems rather than leaving society altogether.1) It would be best if the MGTOWs decided to find alternatives to leaving society because finding solutions to the frustrations which does not involve leaving society can anger the lesbian feminists and the radical feminists.

I agree with you. The MGTOWs are a fertile ground for evangelization and learning about the Catholic position about both men’s rights as well as feminism.

The reason why some orthodox (yes, small letter o) Catholics accept the feminist label is because they are doing that to protest the evils caused by radical feminism. In effect,2) they want feminism to be cleansed of the problems (such as radical feminism and lesbian feminism) that plague feminism.

Nimzovik resonds:
Bolding Mine; Numerals mine.

In terms of "…1) It would be best if the MGTOWs decided to find alternatives to leaving society because finding solutions to the frustrations which does not involve leaving society can anger the lesbian feminists and the radical feminists. " I just do not know if it is viable for the men of MGTOW to be able to effect an alternative solution. At least not in their viable ‘Marriageable Lifetime.’ Things are just that bad today. It is a throw of the dice at best in terms of finding a decent, untainted by Feminism, secular woman. Ideally they, and all of us want a good, healthy relationship. They just don’t see it. Methinks MGTOW would disappear when Feminism has disappeared. When healthy values have returned and men are returned to being viewed as the fantastic examples of humanity that they trully are, as opposed to the rampant shaming tactics employed by Feminists and the catering media favoring the Democrats darling political arm of Feminism.

As for "… they want feminism to be cleansed of the problems (such as radical feminism and lesbian feminism) that plague feminism…" Such small ‘o’ Catholics are still going to have to wrestle with the term ‘Feminist’ which is exclusionary by nature, and does not entice men to be on board with them as it contributes to the ‘ignoring of men’ phenomenon.

Indeed! Why be labeled Feminist when one can be truly Catholic? Catholicism is so much more in favor of women than Feminism ever can or will be.

Just my 2cents.

 

[Crescentinus]

Nimzovik resonds:
Bolding Mine; Numerals mine.

In terms of "…1) It would be best if the MGTOWs decided to find alternatives to leaving society because finding solutions to the frustrations which does not involve leaving society can anger the lesbian feminists and the radical feminists. " I just do not know if it is viable for the men of MGTOW to be able to effect an alternative solution. At least not in their viable ‘Marriageable Lifetime.’ Things are just that bad today. It is a throw of the dice at best in terms of finding a decent, untainted by Feminism, secular woman. Ideally they, and all of us want a good, healthy relationship. They just don’t see it. Methinks MGTOW would disappear when Feminism has disappeared. When healthy values have returned and men are returned to being viewed as the fantastic examples of humanity that they trully are, as opposed to the rampant shaming tactics employed by Feminists and the catering media favoring the Democrats darling political arm of Feminism.

As for "… they want feminism to be cleansed of the problems (such as radical feminism and lesbian feminism) that plague feminism…" Such small ‘o’ Catholics are still going to have to wrestle with the term ‘Feminist’ which is exclusionary by nature, and does not entice men to be on board with them as it contributes to the ‘ignoring of men’ phenomenon.

Just my 2cents.

But, didn’t you also say that “Methinks much of the MGTOW crowd would love to have a woman -with the proviso that said woman would be a decent person. Methinks MGTOW would be happy with a Catholic woman.”? I know for a fact that it’s extremely difficult for the MGTOW men to find a good marriageable woman who had fought against radical and lesbian feminism. However, it’s not impossible.
Also, my fear for the whole men’s rights movement is that it would follow the position of radical feminism in politics. How? Radical feminism is one of the many bad sides in the selfishness that is identity politics. The men’s rights movement must not succumb into identity politics since it would trivialize men’s issues tremendously and make the men’s rights side go for petty issues instead of the bigger issues .

I know. But, the orthodox Catholics who are cleansing feminism of the latter’s problems are destroying both radical and lesbian feminism. How? The orthodox Catholics who do are cleansing feminism are in essence, reacting as well as rebelling against radical and lesbian feminism.

 

[Nimzovik]

Maybe it is semantics. The feminist movement started with the right to vote. Now you could call it something else if you would like but it was is this country throughout the 30’s,40’s and 50’s without a problem. Women went about their way doing work and taking care of their families just as the dads did.

During the 60’s this hatred of men and life came about. The under 40’s youtube generation is rejecting this as are the March for Life millions. The girls are prolife, rejecting abortion and many rejecting birth control. Many have joined the Men’s Right Group as they don’t know where to go and they are helpful in pointing out all the flaws of the movement and convincing the younger generation that the feminist leadership did a great deal of harm to woman.

As posters have stated, many catholic women have not embraced “feminism” because they understood to be catholic was to be pro-woman.

That is what this thread is calling for an understanding , stopping the division and embracing the faith.

Not only should we not embrace it, we should try to correct it. Yet not to allow ourselves to get in the dialogue because in a half hour video, there are two swears doesn’t seem right.

Yes. Indeed. Well said.

 

[silentfactor80]

Both the separatist feminist and the MGTOW positions are based in frustration.
The only difference is that separatist feminism is older than MGTOW. I understand the MGTOW position is indeed borne out of frustration. I am with them as far as the frustrations are concerned. However, there’s a better way in approaching the problems rather than leaving society altogether. It would be best if the MGTOWs decided to find alternatives to leaving society because finding solutions to the frustrations which does not involve leaving society can anger the lesbian feminists and the radical feminists.

I agree with you. The MGTOWs are a fertile ground for evangelization and learning about the Catholic position about both men’s rights as well as feminism.

The reason why some orthodox (yes, small letter o) Catholics accept the feminist label is because they are doing that to protest the evils caused by radical feminism. In effect, they want feminism to be cleansed of the problems (such as radical feminism and lesbian feminism) that plague feminism.

The difference is that MGTOW’s want to be left alone where as radical feminists want to push men out. That is a huge difference.

 

[Nimzovik]

But, didn’t you also say that “Methinks much of the MGTOW crowd would love to have a woman -with the proviso that said woman would be a decent person. Methinks MGTOW would be happy with a Catholic woman.”? I know for a fact that it’s extremely difficult for the MGTOW men to find a good marriageable woman who had fought against radical and lesbian feminism. However, it’s not impossible.
Also, my fear for the whole men’s rights movement is that it would follow the position of radical feminism in politics. How? Radical feminism is one of the many bad sides in the selfishness that is identity politics. The men’s rights movement must not succumb into identity politics since it would trivialize men’s issues tremendously and make the men’s rights side go for petty issues instead of the bigger issues .

I know. But, the orthodox Catholics who are cleansing feminism of the latter’s problems are destroying both radical and lesbian feminism. How? The orthodox Catholics who do are cleansing feminism are in essence, reacting as well as rebelling against radical and lesbian feminism.

Yes. I fear for the Men’s Rights groups maintaing their decorum and their decency as well. No doubt the profiteers will try to capitalize on their cause and correspondinngly corrupt the real truth of the cause, like what happened to Feminism.

Deeeep sigh… I am loath to say this… but it just may be the only way that Men’s voices are going to be heard. I would dare say much money is to be made by selling Men’s Rights T- shirts and the like. Then of course they could be, like I said earlier, co-opted by a Political Party… Perhaps, just *perhaps, *eye popping radical rhetoric is just what is needed to counter balance the damage of Feminism and promote the cause of Men’s Issues. Somethng like - oh I don’t know, perhaps a T shirt that said something like; “Why would I ever be a Democrat? I am a Male!” One sees the potential here - yes?

Moan!!! I just wish there is a better way…

Hmmmmm… Perhaps this is why this subject is being explored on the Catholic Forum? One can only hope.

Maybe, next time when I go to the Walk for Life West Coast, I will see not only the 'Women Deserve Better than Abortion" but and equal number of “We deserve Better Than Abortion” or some such slogan.

One can only hope.

 

[silentfactor80]

Maybe because as first Lady of France, she needed to be more “careful” in her speech. She isn’t just a regular person…her public speeches probably couldn’t have differed too much from what her husband’s political views were.

It seems to be public relations, not an actual censoring of views.

She can say whatever she wants as her speech is protected. I agree there was probably a PR component to it all but I think the fact that she had to apologize says something about the feminist movement’s use of punitive recourse.

 

[silentfactor80]

But, didn’t you also say that “Methinks much of the MGTOW crowd would love to have a woman -with the proviso that said woman would be a decent person. Methinks MGTOW would be happy with a Catholic woman.”? I know for a fact that it’s extremely difficult for the MGTOW men to find a good marriageable woman who had fought against radical and lesbian feminism. However, it’s not impossible.
Also, my fear for the whole men’s rights movement is that it would follow the position of radical feminism in politics. How? Radical feminism is one of the many bad sides in the selfishness that is identity politics. The men’s rights movement must not succumb into identity politics since it would trivialize men’s issues tremendously and make the men’s rights side go for petty issues instead of the bigger issues .

I know. But, the orthodox Catholics who are cleansing feminism of the latter’s problems are destroying both radical and lesbian feminism. How? The orthodox Catholics who do are cleansing feminism are in essence, reacting as well as rebelling against radical and lesbian feminism.

Did you ever think maybe the best way to cleanse a label is to drop it? There are no male equivalents of “feminism” and there is no need for feminism. Why should equality be branded with an exclusively feminine label? Men should be treated as equals too. As a man I would never assume a feminine label regardless of what it is purported to stand for. That pretty much leaves me out in the dark and excluded. I would assume the exclusion is exactly the opposite of supposed feminist ideals. As I have said 3 times already, black people fought for CIVIL RIGHTS, not black rights. They did not call themselves blackists or institute blackism. That is why I respect the civil rights movement more than I do the feminist movement. Black people advocated for unity where as feminists advocate for woman > man.

 

[Nimzovik]

The difference is that MGTOW’s want to be left alone where as radical feminists want to push men out. That is a huge difference.

How true **that **is!!

 

[Nimzovik]

Did you ever think maybe the best way to cleanse a label is to drop it? There are no male equivalents of “feminism” and there is no need for feminism. Why should equality be branded with an exclusively feminine label? Men should be treated as equals too. As a man I would never assume a feminine label regardless of what it is purported to stand for. That pretty much leaves me out in the dark and excluded. I would assume the exclusion is exactly the opposite of supposed feminist ideals. As I have said 3 times already, black people fought for CIVIL RIGHTS, not black rights. They did not call themselves blackists or institute blackism. That is why I respect the civil rights movement more than I do the feminist movement. Black people advocated for unity where as feminists advocate for woman > man.

Your Civil Rights point is a valid point, methinks.

It is a sad fact that Politcs has now become so polarized and splintered.

 

[Crescentinus]

Yes. I fear for the Men’s Rights groups maintaing their decorum and their decency as well. No doubt the profiteers will try to capitalize on their cause and correspondinngly corrupt the real truth of the cause, like what happened to Feminism.

Deeeep sigh… I am loath to say this… but it just may be the only way that Men’s voices are going to be heard. I would dare say much money is to be made by selling Men’s Rights T- shirts and the like. Then of course they could be, like I said earlier, co-opted by a Political Party… Perhaps, just *perhaps, *eye popping radical rhetoric is just what is needed to counter balance the damage of Feminism and promote the cause of Men’s Issues.

Moan!!! I just wish there is a better way…

Hmmmmm… Perhaps this is why this subject is being explored on the Catholic Forum? One can only hope.

Maybe, next time when I go to the Walk for Life West Coast, I will see not only the 'Women Deserve Better than Abortion" but and equal number of “We deserve Better Than Abortion” or some such slogan.

One can only hope.

I am quite cautious when it comes to men’s rights being used and abused by politicians for their own selfish designs.
Also, if one uses eye-popping rhetoric but without any substance, the eye-popping rhetoric would be seen as empty. I do agree that the men’s rights movement do need to grab attention as for them to be heard. But, it would be best if they go for positive attention because otherwise, men’s rights would only be further demonized.

A better slogan would be “We all deserve better than Abortion!”.

 

[Crescentinus]

The difference is that MGTOW’s want to be left alone where as radical feminists want to push men out. That is a huge difference.

Indeed.
That is what the radical and lesbian feminists want to happen in the first place. You have a group of men (MGTOW) who want to be left alone or leave society while two groups who are against the MGTOW (radical and lesbian feminists) want to push all men away. If the MGTOWs succeed then it would be a defeat for men’s rights because of two factors:

1. It would only be a more successful imitation of separatist feminism seeing as separatist feminism had failed.
2. It would be a victory for the radical and lesbian feminists because the radical and lesbian feminists hate men so much that they wanted to push all men away.

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

Did you ever think maybe the best way to cleanse a label is to drop it? There are no male equivalents of “feminism” and there is no need for feminism. Why should equality be branded with an exclusively feminine label? Men should be treated as equals too. As a man I would never assume a feminine label regardless of what it is purported to stand for. That pretty much leaves me out in the dark and excluded. I would assume the exclusion is exactly the opposite of supposed feminist ideals. As I have said 3 times already, black people fought for CIVIL RIGHTS, not black rights. They did not call themselves blackists or institute blackism. That is why I respect the civil rights movement more than I do the feminist movement. Black people advocated for unity where as feminists advocate for woman > man.

You can call it whatever you want, but bottom line is that women still have a ways to go to be treated fairly and equally to men. The reason that the title “feminist” is used is because it actively suggests that one is looking to improve the conditions that women have to deal with. If it’s the title you don’t like, then I encourage you to make a better label. But, for me, being a pro-life feminist doesn’t mean that I am anti-man. I think that your posts suggest that you are caught up in the mere semantics, when it is more about the spirit behind it. Yeah, you can argue that men should be treated fairly. To which I do agree. However, you must admit that men still have more societal mobility and are awarded higher positions than women. Men are still making more than women, and in some parts of the world, horrific things such as rape are seen as the woman’s fault. Men and women should be treated equally, one is not superior to the other.

 

[silentfactor80]

Indeed.
That is what the radical and lesbian feminists want to happen in the first place. You have a group of men (MGTOW) who want to be left alone or leave society while two groups who are against the MGTOW (radical and lesbian feminists) want to push all men away. If the MGTOWs succeed then it would be a defeat for men’s rights because of two factors:

1. It would only be a more successful imitation of separatist feminism seeing as separatist feminism had failed.
2. It would be a victory for the radical and lesbian feminists because the radical and lesbian feminists hate men so much that they wanted to push all men away.

It is called tactical retreat. Maybe the reason women think they don’t need men is because they take men for granted. Perhaps by removing ourselves from society women will understand how much we do for them and learn to value us. Why fight them? Jesus said “resist ye not evil.” MGTOW is men turning the other cheek.

 

[Crescentinus]

It is called tactical retreat. Maybe the reason women think they don’t need men is because they take men for granted. Perhaps by removing ourselves from society women will understand how much we do for them and learn to value us. Why fight them? Jesus said “resist ye not evil.” MGTOW is men turning the other cheek.

No, it would better to stand and fight.
Yes, I do see that fact. Hence, it would best if the men rebel seeing as a rebellion has a more powerful effect than leaving. Why? Because if men leave, the lesbian feminists would simply try to replace the men.

 

[Crescentinus]

Did you ever think maybe the best way to cleanse a label is to drop it? There are no male equivalents of “feminism” and there is no need for feminism. Why should equality be branded with an exclusively feminine label? Men should be treated as equals too. As a man I would never assume a feminine label regardless of what it is purported to stand for. That pretty much leaves me out in the dark and excluded. I would assume the exclusion is exactly the opposite of supposed feminist ideals. As I have said 3 times already, black people fought for CIVIL RIGHTS, not black rights. They did not call themselves blackists or institute blackism. That is why I respect the civil rights movement more than I do the feminist movement. Black people advocated for unity where as feminists advocate for woman > man.

I argue differently. It would be best if the labels are cleansed so that the radicals would have less of a leg to stand on and it would thus weaken the radicals’ power.
I agree with you that men are to be treated equally in society. Hence, we have men’s rights. However, it would best if we see not the problems as a dichotomy but as for what it is - as issues that had grown complex and in need of solutions.

 

[silentfactor80]

You can call it whatever you want, but bottom line is that women still have a ways to go to be treated fairly and equally to men. The reason that the title “feminist” is used is because it actively suggests that one is looking to improve the conditions that women have to deal with. If it’s the title you don’t like, then I encourage you to make a better label. But, for me, being a pro-life feminist doesn’t mean that I am anti-man. I think that your posts suggest that you are caught up in the mere semantics, when it is more about the spirit behind it. Yeah, you can argue that men should be treated fairly. To which I do agree. However, you must admit that men still have more societal mobility and are awarded higher positions than women. Men are still making more than women, and in some parts of the world, horrific things such as rape are seen as the woman’s fault. Men and women should be treated equally, one is not superior to the other.

You are supposing that men always have it better and easier than women which is not true. Men are the ones that more likely to be homeless than women (goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/why-are-men-more-likely-to-be-homeless/). I don’t think these people have too much societal mobility. Boys are graded more harshly by female teachers (pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/11/26/female-teachers-give-boys-lower-marks/). That’s fair? Men don’t get scholarships for female dominated professions like nursing in the way that women get for sciences. Also, google “men’s health” (203M hits) and “women’s health.” (335M hits) Women’s health is much more research because of feminist lobbying. (kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/2012/health-law-men-michelle-andrews-082812.aspx) Men die earlier and we have weaker immune systems (sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110927192352.htm) but no one seems to care about that let alone those “we love equality feminists.” Also, the pay gap is smaller than what you think (stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160). The often quoted 80 cents to the dollar is a misrepresentation of statistics for political purposes. Also, men get those positions because they put less of a value on family than women. A man will think nothing of working 50 hours but women want more family time. Read Warren Farrell’s “Why Men Earn More…” I posted a link on the first page of the thread.

 

[silentfactor80]

No, it would better to stand and fight.
Yes, I do see that fact. Hence, it would best if the men rebel seeing as a rebellion has a more powerful effect than leaving. Why? Because if men leave, the lesbian feminists would simply try to replace the men.

And when they fail we say “we told you so.”

 

[Crescentinus]

You can call it whatever you want, but bottom line is that women still have a ways to go to be treated fairly and equally to men. The reason that the title “feminist” is used is because it actively suggests that one is looking to improve the conditions that women have to deal with. If it’s the title you don’t like, then I encourage you to make a better label. But, for me, being a pro-life feminist doesn’t mean that I am anti-man. I think that your posts suggest that you are caught up in the mere semantics, when it is more about the spirit behind it. Yeah, you can argue that men should be treated fairly. To which I do agree. However, you must admit that men still have more societal mobility and are awarded higher positions than women. Men are still making more than women, and in some parts of the world, horrific things such as rape are seen as the woman’s fault. Men and women should be treated equally, one is not superior to the other.

You are one of the feminists who are rebelling against radical feminism and I salute you for that.