Radical feminism and morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Promoting marriage and virginity doesn’t necessarily raise the status of women.
And did the Catholic Church ever actually say that men and women were equal in dignity, worth, etc. prior to the 20th century?
Dear friend,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post.

By her entering into holy wedlock a woman humbly receives the divinely ordained role of motherhood and it is by acceptance of this, her proper sphere, that she fulfills her true destiny. That, dear friend, is a truly dignified position in the eyes of Almighty God, irrespective of what aberrant radical femenism may say to the contrary.

To prize and safeguard virginity prior to marriage is surely to foster chastity, which is something wholly positive given our wounded nature from Original Sin. Without chastity, men become like animals that copulate when in heat. Animals are sex driven by instinct, but men and women are endowed with the gift of reason and can choose when and with whom to be intimate. Thus, desirous of chastity, men and women can freely remain virgins until their special wedding night. Protecting virginity and cultivating and clinging to chastity sparates them from the animal kingdom and ennobles them. Modern femenism has actually degraded women by reducing carnal copulation to a mere physical act from which sensual pleasure is derived.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 

2009 - Ten Commandments in a Kentucky Courthouse and the ACLU

covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/051480.html
Another “Ten-Commandments-in-a-Kentucky-Courthouse-and-the-ACLU” case:
“The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. … Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible.” – Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, ACLU of Kentucky vs. Mercer County, KY
 
I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: valuing a woman for her virginity, purity, or innocence, or even for what you perceive as such is still valuing her for her sexuality, not for who she is as a person. And I know it may come as a shock to some, but a woman is so much more than her sexual experiences, or lack thereof.
That’s true of everything, though. I happen to have a very lovely, intelligent, and kind-hearted girlfriend. But I cannot say that I love her *because *she is lovely, intelligent, and kind-hearted, because then I would be loving those things about her and not the woman herself. Love, if it is to be real love and not a comfortable counterfeit, must be as particular as its object. And we must remain silent before trying to apprehend the *haecceity *of another.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t follow that my girlfriend is not thereby lovely, intelligent, or kind-hearted, or that these things don’t matter, aren’t desirable, or shouldn’t be talked about.
Things like the linked article give me the creeps. The whole “I want a woman who projects innocence” or “society used to value virginal women and we should again” thing strikes me as an underhanded way of saying “this is what I want sexually from a woman”.
Are men not allowed to have sexual preferences? Women have them. They generally like men who work and are productive and so on. I don’t begrudge them this preference; it’s perfectly reasonable. Certainly beats the “he must be so tall and so tall muscley and have this kind of hair and those kinds of eyes,” in that at least a man can be held to account for his productivity.
 
That’s true of everything, though. I happen to have a very lovely, intelligent, and kind-hearted girlfriend. But I cannot say that I love her *because *she is lovely, intelligent, and kind-hearted, because then I would be loving those things about her and not the woman herself. Love, if it is to be real love and not a comfortable counterfeit, must be as particular as its object. And we must remain silent before trying to apprehend the *haecceity *of another.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t follow that my girlfriend is not thereby lovely, intelligent, or kind-hearted, or that these things don’t matter, aren’t desirable, or shouldn’t be talked about.

Are men not allowed to have sexual preferences? Women have them. They generally like men who work and are productive and so on. I don’t begrudge them this preference; it’s perfectly reasonable. Certainly beats the “he must be so tall and so tall muscley and have this kind of hair and those kinds of eyes,” in that at least a man can be held to account for his productivity.
Sexual preferences are different than valuing someone for what they can give you sexually. I happen to like talk, dark, and handsome. But I don’t value someone for those things, much less what they have to offer sexually.

And loving your girlfriend because she’s kind, intelligent, etc is far different than loving her because she’s a virgin (or not).

We need to stop looking at women as sex objects-period. It doesn’t matter if you’re watching porn or looking for a woman who “projects purity and innocence”. Its time we look at women as people.
 
Ah yes, another thread condemning modern mores and exalting the 1950s/Good Old Days:rolleyes:

I think were way ahead of the 50s in many ways just due to the fact that we got rid of Jim Crow and ended the Cold War (without destroying the world).
Do you like changing the topic? Just wondering.

Peace,
Ed
 
I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: valuing a woman for her virginity, purity, or innocence, or even for what you perceive as such is still valuing her for her sexuality, not for who she is as a person. And I know it may come as a shock to some, but a woman is so much more than her sexual experiences, or lack thereof.

Things like the linked article give me the creeps. The whole “I want a woman who projects innocence” or “society used to value virginal women and we should again” thing strikes me as an underhanded way of saying “this is what I want sexually from a woman”.
In the 1950s and 1960s, young men and young women were both taught: no sex before marriage. To get to know each other as complete persons. Our fathers and mothers had been young once and both understood the natural attraction both had for each other. They had it too. That is why there was dating which might lead to courtship, which might lead to engagement, and then, to the basic building block of all societies, marriage and families with children. Remember the TV show, Married with Children? The icy title logo? The interactions between mom and dad? It was pathetic and dysfunctional.

Today, the cart is put before the horse, or, to put it another way: shoot first and ask questions later or not at all. Today is definitely not better. Women are being exploited today in topless bars, in strip clubs, by pimps, and by the porn industry which does not wish to be called that. They prefer “adult entertainment.” Why? The same way the military prefers the term “casualties” over ‘dead people.’

Peace,
Ed
 
I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: valuing a woman for her virginity, purity, or innocence, or even for what you perceive as such is still valuing her for her sexuality, not for who she is as a person. And I know it may come as a shock to some, but a woman is so much more than her sexual experiences, or lack thereof.".
I do see your point but surely that doesn’t mean a woman shouldn’t value herself for her virginity and purity and men and society shouldn’t respect her for that. Whereas now quite the opposite is true.
 
Sexual preferences are different than valuing someone for what they can give you sexually. I happen to like talk, dark, and handsome. But I don’t value someone for those things, much less what they have to offer sexually.

And loving your girlfriend because she’s kind, intelligent, etc is far different than loving her because she’s a virgin (or not).

We need to stop looking at women as sex objects-period. It doesn’t matter if you’re watching porn or looking for a woman who “projects purity and innocence”. Its time we look at women as people.
Well, again, I don’t love her because she’s kind, intelligent, etc. I love her, and she is kind, intelligent, etc. There are plenty of people who are kind and intelligent etc. but whom I do not and would not love the same way. Therefore my love for her is as particular as she is: there is no one like her, and my love for her is nothing like my love for anyone else. She isn’t reducible to her qualities and my love for her isn’t reducible to my love for her qualities, either.

What I’m trying to say is that what you’re saying isn’t interesting because it’s too general to be really useful. Of course we shouldn’t love women just because they’re virgins. Then we’d just be loving an abstraction (virginity) and not the women themselves, which is our real duty and joy. But that principle applies to everything else – beauty, intelligence, gentleness, fertility, etc.

That doesn’t mean we can’t admire beauty, intelligent, gentleness, fertility, or chastity, or admire women who possess these traits. These are all goods, after all, and goods are worthy objects of love.

I can’t say I’ve ever really understood the complaint that women must not be treated as “sex objects.” What is meant by “sex objects”? Objects of sexual desire, attraction, and attention? But they are sex objects in that sense and there’s nothing to be done about it. That’s not a bad thing. Perhaps you mean they should not be treated as if they were nothing more than sex objects. But no one here is doing that. And admiring the virtue of chastity in a woman is certainly not the same thing as treating her as if she were no more than a blow-up doll which is conveniently animated and warm, etc. Virtues speak to something higher than the body which possesses them; they speak to characteristic excellence of the soul.

Frankly, it’s the modern/leftist attitude toward sex which treats people as nothing more than sex objects – as interchangeable things, means to the end of immediate gratification of one’s passions, who can be swapped out and replaced without consequence. Porn, contraception, masturbation, and abortion all accomplish this denuding of the nobility of the sexual faculty in various ways. I’ve been through that lifestyle before and, even in the depths of my own degeneracy and defectiveness, found it amazingly inhumane and unsatisfying.
 
I can’t say I’ve ever really understood the complaint that women must not be treated as “sex objects.” What is meant by “sex objects”? Objects of sexual desire, attraction, and attention? But they are sex objects in that sense and there’s nothing to be done about it. That’s not a bad thing. Perhaps you mean they should not be treated as if they were nothing more than sex objects.
The best example of male privilege I’ve read in years.

Wow. Just wow.
 
Pining away for the “good o’l days” of the pre 60’s will get you absolutely nowhere. We live in the 21st Century, not the middle of the 20th Century. As a parent, we have to do our best to make sure that both our male and female children develop a good moral compass that points them in the right direction so that they may make the appropriate life decisions.

I seriously doubt that American Catholics would want to live like either Mormon’s or Muslims. If you are an active part of the Mormon Church and are seen in public or private engaging in an activity that is frowned upon by the church, then you will be reported to the appropriate parties and you will be visited by a group of the “behavior” police or called into have a chat with your bishop. Can you imagine this happening in the RCC? What a miserable way to live.

Yes, virginity seems to be highly valued in Muslim society, otherwise the wacko’s who blow themselves up along with thousands of others wouldn’t be dreaming of life in paradise with their 72 Vestal Virgins;).

I don’t want to be Amish - I like my car and my computer and my cell phone and living in this century, not 150 years ago. Any religion that would shun members whom they judge to be “bad”, is not for me.

Not everything that is bad in this world revolves around sexual mores - I would venture to say that the many wars taking place in our world are horrible and create much more misery than Ms. Magazine or Playboy ever did. Most of us have the ability to filter out the morally reprehensible actions that cause our society pain.

Being a virgin when you marry (both men and women) surely didn’t stop the number of horrible marriages pre 1060 - people just suffered more and made their children miserable. And yes, Ed, it does matter that Jim Crow and the Cold War were both in place before the bad o’l 60’s. As I said before, sexual behavior is not the end all and beall of human misery.
 
Dr. Peter Kreeft, a highly respected professor of Catholic philosophy, has written and said over and over again that what made 1960s special there was that at that time there was a gigantic COLLAPSE in the Catholic Church’s resistance in the West (USA and Europe, etc.) to the decadent sexual and social mores.

These decadent sexual values were strong in parts of society in the 1920s (the Roaring 20s), in the “Restoration” period in English history (among the upper class), and in ancient Rome, during the Renaissance (just check out all the lewd and crude sexual references in the plays and poems of Shakespeare, someone supposed to have been a Catholic of some sort), and at other times.

What the 1960s and 1970s different was that the Catholic resistance collapsed. The new sexual and social mores became prevalent among most CATHOLICS for the first time. Therefore, no one forced these new sexual and social mores on Catholics. Catholic, in large numbers, simply opted to go in that direction and no one stopped them. And, no today, we have the mess we are in.

Therefore, blaming outsiders (outside the Catholic Church) doesn’t seem apropos. No radical feminists ever had the power to force radical feminism onto any Catholic family or university. We Catholics are not victims of powerful, nefarious forces outside our control. We don’t need to fight a Culture War against external enemies.

That’s the only think that will do any good. Rush Limbaugh-type trashing of Liberals and Feminists feels good, for a moment, and then goes on to accomplish NOTHING.

The Catholic Church is the Chose Nation of today. It is the job of the Catholic People to steer clear of non-Catholic ideologies and practices regarding sexuality and marriage.

YET, for the last 40 or so years, we’ve gone adopted wholesale the mores of the dominant pagan culture. Now we suffer.

For some, the solution is to ATTACK and ATTACK and vilify these outsiders who promote “free love” and divorce and so on.

But Liberals and Feminists are FORCING nothing on us. They don’t force Catholics to divorce, fornicate, and abort at the same rates as atheists and the general population of Americans.

So, I wish we could be logical, and regain our senses, and do what needs to be done, rather than wasting all this energy in imitating the self proclaimed radio “doctor of democracy.”
Dear Bartalome Casas,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

By way of reply may I just say, dear friend, that I would wholeheartedly concur with what you have said above. You make some very insightful remarks, which I think need to be heard today.

Mr. Kreeft is quite correct, It admits of no doubt that there has been, since the 1960’s, a monumental failure on the part of contemporary Catholics to counteract the destructive impact of the sexual revolution, including radical fanatical femenism. This is a sad indictment upon the modern Church, which has not only shamefully permitted this to happen, but, alas, has also trimed its sails and even taken its cue from the prevailing decadent culture. If evidence is needed to support that assertion, then you only have to read many of the threads on these boards. There is also a refusal to hear what the Church has said respecting various issues, prior to the 1960’s, as if this Sacred Tradtion is no longer relevant. Undeniably, multitudes of contemporary Catholics have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice, which refuses the call to sanctity and separation from the godless world, calling that “prissy Puritanism” (not that the Protestant Puritan saints could not teach us a thing or two about living a devout life).

Having said that, I do not think that we should underestimate the iniquitous external enemies of our most holy religion, my dear friend, such as radical aberrant femenism. Catholics today need to wake up and be perpetually vigilant against the godless central assault of post-Christian secularism. Many Catholics are lily-livered and fret overmuch about damaging the Church’s credibility by being to austere and world-denying. Some are even doubtful about ‘imposing’ the Christian moral code on the public in general. This is tragic to say the very least. Western civilisation has by and large established its judicial system and its code of law on the the basis of Judaeo-Christian formulations, and let us never be ashamed to declare that from the housetops.

We must needs get our own house in order, to be sure, but we must also refute and expose the errors/evils of the anti-Christian movements which are inimical to our most holy faith. We have an obligation to denounce the prevailing wicked pagan culture, which promotes “free love” and the normalization of homosexual deviant acts; which seeks to blur the distinction between the sexes; which supports co-habitation of the unmarried; which support abortion etc. It would be deriliction of Christian duty to hold our peace.

Catholics need to remind themselves that the post-Christian agenda is for the destruction of morality, or at least the relativization of morality - tantamount to much the same thing in the final analysis.

Certainly there were problems prior to the 1960’s, but I think it is incontrovertible that the sexual and moral revoution had a seismic impact, never witnessed hitherto. Along came the that “whole generation with a new explanation”; along came that decade of decadence, the unhappy effects of which are still being felt today. There is a culture war to be fought and we must be on the Lord’s side.

God bless and thankyou for your contribution, my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
They argued for equality but wanted the double standard. IOW, what they wanted was to be equal but special.
If you could explain what double standards and ‘special’ they wanted please? It has always been double standards in favour of men with some changes from the 20th century.
 
If you could explain what double standards and ‘special’ they wanted please? It has always been double standards in favour of men with some changes from the 20th century.
I was waiting for someone to ask this. Based on your spelling of “favour” I presume you are in Britain somewhere, but my comments are based on my observations in the U.S.

All life is a trade-off; every gain incurs a cost. My observation has been that women [as a group] want “equality,” but are unwilling to pay the price. Where I used to live, they griped about not having equality before the law [a law BTW that actually favored women], so we got equality before the law, and lo and behold, the next gripe became “equality was not equal”! They wanted to be more equal. On the job, they want equal pay for equal work, but while “equal pay” is collected, somehow “equal work” never materializes. About 20 years ago, there was a woman anchor on a national New York TV show, undoubtedly making beaucoup $$$. During their divorce hearings, her husband [over 50] sued for spousal support since he stayed home and kept their house. Her reaction was, “Can’t he get a job?” She wanted to be paid like a man, but didn’t want to pay like a man. A woman employee was having an affair with the boss. While I was in a corner doing my job and minding my own business, she was working to have her undesirable tasks dumped off onto me.

Then there is the petticoat syndrome. The last refuge of every female is her petticoat. Finally cornered, she immediately, if not sooner, hides behind it. Give a woman a low performance rating, and she cries “sexual harassment.” The current example of the use of the petticoat is Nancy Pelosi’s attempt during the law student episode. Can there be a better example of this syndrome than the law student’s own use of her petticoat herself? Yes, there can. There is Mizz Iron Petticoat herself: Gloria Allred who arrives on the scene of every sexually “oppressed” female with her legal briefs full of petticoats and quickly takes command of the media spin.

'Nuff said. :mad:
 
May I ask how, by way of examples, men and women should interact with each other if both want to have a relationship that may lead to marriage? The rules appear to have changed after the so-called Sexual Revolution.

Pope Paul VI dropped a bomb on the radicals in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was published, and he reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Catholic Church regarding artificial birth control.

Peace,
Ed
 
Pining away for the “good o’l days” of the pre 60’s will get you absolutely nowhere. We live in the 21st Century, not the middle of the 20th Century. As a parent, we have to do our best to make sure that both our male and female children develop a good moral compass that points them in the right direction so that they may make the appropriate life decisions.

I seriously doubt that American Catholics would want to live like either Mormon’s or Muslims. If you are an active part of the Mormon Church and are seen in public or private engaging in an activity that is frowned upon by the church, then you will be reported to the appropriate parties and you will be visited by a group of the “behavior” police or called into have a chat with your bishop. Can you imagine this happening in the RCC? What a miserable way to live.

Yes, virginity seems to be highly valued in Muslim society, otherwise the wacko’s who blow themselves up along with thousands of others wouldn’t be dreaming of life in paradise with their 72 Vestal Virgins;).

I don’t want to be Amish - I like my car and my computer and my cell phone and living in this century, not 150 years ago. Any religion that would shun members whom they judge to be “bad”, is not for me.

Not everything that is bad in this world revolves around sexual mores - I would venture to say that the many wars taking place in our world are horrible and create much more misery than Ms. Magazine or Playboy ever did. Most of us have the ability to filter out the morally reprehensible actions that cause our society pain.

Being a virgin when you marry (both men and women) surely didn’t stop the number of horrible marriages pre 1060 - people just suffered more and made their children miserable. And yes, Ed, it does matter that Jim Crow and the Cold War were both in place before the bad o’l 60’s. As I said before, sexual behavior is not the end all and beall of human misery.
Very well said! Sexual sin did not start in 1960. It was just better covered up.
 
I’m still not clear how anything I said constitutes an “example” of “male privilege.”
Very well said! Sexual sin did not start in 1960. It was just better covered up.
OK, but sin ought to be covered up (in the sense of “kept private”), not advertised. Surely you don’t think taking sins once rightly regarded as something discrete and shameful and making them publicly celebrated is an improvement on things?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top