Radical feminism and morality

[sedonaman]

You sound bitter, …

This is rich coming from someone who calls himself an “Angry Atheist”.

As far as generalizing is concerned, I see nothing wrong with it. It is impossible not to generalize when it comes to human behavior because there is an exception to every rule, even the rule that there is an exception to every rule. So generalizing is necessary. BTW, if you don’t like generalization, why don’t you criticize those posters here who say things like, “Men have always treated women like sex objects”?

 

[sw85]

I appreciate your candor.
Most Catholics today (even those labelling themselves Traditionalists) claim that the Church has always taught that sex is good and that men and women are equal.
Your honesty is refreshing.

I know reading things you disagree with is hard, but try reading it again. I said explicitly that something which is profane is not necessarily bad. It’s simply not sacred. All that is sacred is good and all that is evil is profane. Not all that is profane is evil and not all that is good is sacred. There are profane goods.

Laughter’s an example of a profane good. It’s good to laugh. But it doesn’t belong in the presence of the sacred. You shouldn’t burst out into hysterical laughter in the middle of a homily.

Bodily functions are good, too. It’s good for you to urinate; serious health problems arise from not urinating. Doesn’t mean you should unzip and let loose on the altar.

Sex is a good, but its a profane good. You shouldn’t have sex in church; that’s sacrilege. And you shouldn’t have sex with consecrated holy people, i.e., nuns and monks who are consecrated virgins.

The sacred/profane dichotomy overlaps with but is distinct from the good/evil dichotomy. Try reading Emile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade, both of whom talk about the sacred and the profane (and the latter of whom wrote a book with that as its title).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The problem is that women have traditonally been treated as sex objects (and had their worth determined based on that) even in Catholic society. Whereas men were treated as sexual actors.

In other words, sexuality is something a man has, but a woman’s sexuality is what she is. At least according to this standard.

"

Is there any evidence for this claim? Sexuality, it seems to me, has always been understood as vocational. Husbandhood, an explicitly sexual institution, is something men are rather than do.

If the basis for this claim is simply that women are held to different standards re: chastity, I don’t buy it. As I said above, there is at least one good hypothetical reason for this.
I mean is there really no reason whatosever to see men as sexually active and women sexually passive? Their physiologies themselves speak to this.

.

But it doesn’t matter whether *you buy *it or not.
Throughout history women have been defined by their fertility, sexual virtue (or lack thereof), and who they were supposed to have sex with and bear the children of (generally their husbands). In other words their sexuality.

Whereas men have traditionally been judged based on their accomplishments, what class they were born into, and of course what positions of power they held.

This is an obvious fact that’s widely acknewledged.
If you want people to believe otherwise, the burden of proof is on* you*.

 

[sw85]

But it doesn’t matter whether *you buy *it or not.
Throughout history women have been defined by their fertility, sexual virtue (or lack thereof), and who they were supposed to have sex with and bear the children of (generally their husbands). In other words their sexuality.

No one’s denying that women have historically been treated as sexual being. That stands to reason: sexuality is what distinguishes men from women. What is being denied is that (a) it’s wrong to recognize these distinctions, (b) it’s wrong to mold social attitudes according to those distinctions, and (c) the claim that women have historically been treated as if they were nothing more than walking vaginas.

I have never heard this claim made by anyone who isn’t a feminist (i.e., who isn’t politically invested in this questionable narrative). Hence why I asked if there’s any evidence to support it. I’d like to refute it, but I can’t refute an argument that isn’t being made.

At any rate, this is a diversion from the original point I was trying to make: that women are wired sexually in a different manner than men; that this difference in wiring (i.e., evolutionary programming) translates into an easier time remaining chaste; that, therefore, where chastity is socially valued, it follows that women will bear the burden of chastity. The reverse is true with respect to other things, such as courage and aggression.

 

[Portrait]

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,

Hello again and sorry that you did not think that I answered your question or addressed your main point satisfactorily. Please allow me to try again.

By way of reply let me say first that supporting and encouraging the honourable estate of marriage and virginity certainly does nothing to degrade women or render them inferior. However, you say that it “doesn’t necessarily raise the status of women”. If a women submits herself to marriage, then I would maintain that it does elevate her status, inasmuch as she is fullfilling her divinely ordained role as both wife and mother. To refuse this God ordained role to selfishly pursue a life as a ‘career women’ is what is actually demeaning, because it is an arrogant repudiation of the proper sphere intended for her by God.

Maintaining virginity prior to marriage helps in safeguarding chastity, which is, once again, living according to the moral law of God. This, my dear friend, surely does raise the status of a woman in the sight of God, since she is making a deliberate choice to live in obedience to His divine law, rather than commit fornication, perhaps even with multiple ‘partners’. With this God is well pleased, especially when many of her contemporaries are doing the very opposite.

The New Testament throughout emphasizes the dignity of womanhood, and it is, my dear friend, an indisputable fact that the example and teaching of Christ have elevated women in one country and society after another to a position that she did not occupy previously, long before the 20th cent. Whereas in many of the worlds religions, not least in Judaism and Islam, women have a far lower and inferior place than men, the New Testament emphasizes that men and women have equal dignity and perfect spiritual equality - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28, emphasis mine).

God bless and I hope I have done better this time, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear friend,

Hello again and sorry that you did not think that I answered your question or addressed your main point satisfactorily. Please allow me to try again.

By way of reply let me say first that supporting and encouraging the honourable estate of marriage and virginity certainly does nothing to degrade women or render them inferior. However, you say that it “doesn’t necessarily raise the status of women”. ** If a women submits herself to marriage, then I would maintain that it does elevate her status, inasmuch as she is fullfilling her divinely ordained role as both wife and mother. ** To refuse this God ordained role to selfishly pursue a life as a ‘career women’ is what is actually demeaning, because it is an arrogant repudiation of the proper sphere intended for her by God.

Maintaining virginity prior to marriage helps in safeguarding chastity, which is, once again, living according to the moral law of God. This, my dear friend, surely does raise the status of a woman in the sight of God, since she is making a deliberate choice to live in obedience to His divine law, rather than commit fornication, perhaps even with multiple ‘partners’. With this God is well pleased, especially when many of her contemporaries are doing the very opposite.

The New Testament throughout emphasizes the dignity of womanhood, and it is, my dear friend, an indisputable fact that the example and teaching of Christ have elevated women in one country and society after another to a position that she did not occupy previously, long before the 20th cent. Whereas in many of the worlds religions, not least in Judaism and Islam, women have a far lower and inferior place than men, the New Testament emphasizes that men and women have equal dignity and perfect spiritual equality - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28, emphasis mine).

God bless and I hope I have done better this time, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

Since you say – marriage fulfills a woman’s “divinely ordain role” – anything other – would not be in fulfillment of this role. Well – this would place even women religious (nuns) outside of this “divinely ordained role” – since they have repudiated the role of wife and mother.

 

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Ah yes, another thread condemning modern mores and exalting the 1950s/Good Old Days

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).

I am discussing your long standing pattern of behavior of which this thread is a prime example. How is that not on topic?

Perhaps you should start another thread if my pattern of behavior is your main concern. The topic is still radical feminism not Jim Crow or surviving the Cold War.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[Portrait]

That claim is in no way modest.
Making claims about divinity and the nature of Man are by definition not modest.

Dear friend,

Hello again and thankyou for your response above.

Claims respecting God and the nature of man are not necessarily immodest if they are based upon deductions from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is what the Church and its doctors have done since the beginning and it is how doctrine is developed down through the ages. Having said that, dear friend, irreverent and immoderate speculation must avoided.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, for one thing, chastity comes more easily to women than it does men. There is plenty of scientific backing for this. Women are wired not to actively desire sex at levels similar to those of men until after they’ve *started *having sex – this is an evolutionary program aimed at ensuring (a) that women will not be ruled by hormones when picking a mate who must care for them and their children, and (b) that, having chosen (wisely, because free of hormonal rule) a suitable spouse, they will come to desire him and thereby have many, many children with him.

I think this explains why some non-virgin women get into the same pattern of really bad relationships – with punks, drug dealers, abusers, etc. Everyone around them, even the women themselves, know these relationships are bad and that they shouldn’t be getting involved in them. But those women’s ability to make rational decisions on the basis of this knowledge is attenuated by their sexual desire for these kinds of men – a desire aroused by the changes to the brain caused by the loss of virginity in the first place. (That’s just a speculation, I have no idea if it has scientific backing.)

At any rate, if chastity comes more easily for women, isn’t the burden of chastity therefore on them? They have less excuse for slipping up, unlike men who are ruled by their sex drive pretty much from puberty. The obvious analogy would be to courage. Men are expected to be courageous because they are physically stronger. A man who resorts to shrieking hysterics when attacked is a coward; a woman who does the same thing is not a coward. That’s because men have less of an excuse for such behavior than women, being, by nature, better equipped to confront dangers and threats.

The corollary of this is that, since it takes two to tango (hah!), if all women did what came naturally to them – which is to say, remain chaste – it follows that all men (who aren’t rapists, at least) would have to be chaste by default. So in that sense, at least, the “double standard” can be understood as rational.

None of this is to say that men shouldn’t exercise sexual self-control. They should, precisely because they can and because it’s good to do so. (And it’s not near so hard as most men say it is. If I can kick sexual self-indulgence cold-turkey, anyone can!) It’s just that men and women differ sexually, and chastity is a virtue relating to sex, so it follows it’s going to have different implications for men and women. If it does, it follows we should recognize and act on those differences accordingly.

Just food for thought!

Just what are you actually advocating?
Are you saying that women should have harsher social and/or legal penalties applied to them when it comes to sexual misconduct?

Are you advocating the traditional approach where women are punished severely (perhaps even fatally) for sleeping around (or simply being accused of sleeping around) but when a man (especially a powerful man) is caught doing it people simply say that ‘boys will be boys?’

 

[Portrait]

---

Since you say – marriage fulfills a woman’s “divinely ordain role” – anything other – would not be in fulfillment of this role. Well – this would place even women religious (nuns) outside of this “divinely ordained role” – since they have repudiated the role of wife and mother.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

You are quite correct, my dear friend, female religous are obviously an exception, since they are betrothed mystically to Christ and dedicated to the service of Holy Mother Church. They have made the choice to give their hearts entirely to Christ rather than any earthly lover.

God bless and thankyou for bringing that to my notice.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, if by “double standard” you mean “two different standards for two different situations,” then it’s just reasonable, no?

I said explicitly that a woman who screams and shrinks from her attacker is not a coward, so I don’t know where you’re coming from here. We have different standards with respect to courage for men and women. That standard arises from the respective natures of men and women. No one thinks this distinction in standards is unfair. QED. The same logic applies re: chastity.

It’s easy to caricature arguments instead of engage with them, I know, but at least try. I have pointed out that women are wired differently with respect to sex drive than men, and that this difference means they are better suited to live chastely than men – i.e., it comes to them more easily. Do you deny any of these things? If so, why? If not, on what grounds do you claim the “double standard” (i.e., the recognition that distinctions exist and that society ought to take them into consideration in forming its general attitudes) is bad?

Everything which is rational and sound is capable of being abused. Nazis and Soviets were murderers obsessed with biology and psychology; does it follow that biology and psychology are false?

The question should not be “does it lead to good things?” For so long as the masses of men are sinners, everything will lead to bad things. The question should be “is it true; does it accord with reality?” I argue it does. And society should predicate itself on truth, not comfortable falsehoods.

At any rate, nothing in the principle itself requires such abuses. (That’s why they’re called “abuses.”) Much of early American society seems to have been patriarchal without being particularly vile, for instance. In fact I’ve explicitly acknowledged men have a duty to control their sexual appetites, too. I do it myself. All I’m saying is that, when you take into consideration the fact that chastity comes more easily to women, it makes sense to expect women to be more chaste.

Unfortunately you seem to be saying a bit more than that.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, if by “double standard” you mean “two different standards for two different situations,” then it’s just reasonable, no?

I said explicitly that a woman who screams and shrinks from her attacker is not a coward, so I don’t know where you’re coming from here. We have different standards with respect to courage for men and women. That standard arises from the respective natures of men and women. No one thinks this distinction in standards is unfair. QED. The same logic applies re: chastity.

It’s easy to caricature arguments instead of engage with them, I know, but at least try. I have pointed out that women are wired differently with respect to sex drive than men, and that this difference means they are better suited to live chastely than men – i.e., it comes to them more easily. Do you deny any of these things? If so, why? If not, on what grounds do you claim the “double standard” (i.e., the recognition that distinctions exist and that society ought to take them into consideration in forming its general attitudes) is bad?

Everything which is rational and sound is capable of being abused. Nazis and Soviets were murderers obsessed with biology and psychology; does it follow that biology and psychology are false?

The question should not be “does it lead to good things?” For so long as the masses of men are sinners, everything will lead to bad things. The question should be “is it true; does it accord with reality?” I argue it does. And society should predicate itself on truth, not comfortable falsehoods.

At any rate, nothing in the principle itself requires such abuses. (That’s why they’re called “abuses.”) Much of early American society seems to have been patriarchal without being particularly vile, for instance. In fact I’ve explicitly acknowledged men have a duty to control their sexual appetites, too. I do it myself. All I’m saying is that, when you take into consideration the fact that chastity comes more easily to women, it makes sense to expect women to be more chaste.

I am glad that you admit that what you’re advocating is impractical and does not necessarily lead to anything good (if implemented).

 

[edwest2]

In the 1960s, things were not perfect, but the relationship between the sexes had clearly defined rules. And regarding sexual sin, it’s bad enough that the man or woman committed adultery or fornication. What you did not do is to create public scandal by:

A) Bringing it to everyone’s attention. "Hey everybody. I (a single man) got laid last night!

B) Create an atmosphere of indifference. “Hey. What’s the big deal? They’re (men and women) all doing it.”

C) Calling into question clear Church teaching, especially without understanding it. “Hey. What do a bunch of celibate old men know about sex?” I recall hearing that a lot in the early days of the Revolution.

Pope Benedict has clearly identified Indifference as one reason Catholics and non-Catholics have adopted a way of dealing with sex that is outside the bounds of normal biological behavior. “Consenting adults” was an early term coupled with the following: “Hey! Leave us alone. We’re responsible adults. We’ll do what we want!” This referring to those who attempted to correct their wayward sons and daughters who were living together without benefit of marriage. To paraphrase from the Bible: They turned away from the truth, from what their parents taught them, and accepted a new authority - a lie that was told to me like this: “You want to have sex with your girlfriend, right? Go ahead.” All authority, except the radicals, was painted with a broad brush as old, irrelevant, oppressive, ignorant and all the way up to bigoted. The “free” choice regarding sex was ‘have lots of it,’ with anybody, whenever.

The media was gradually amplifying that message over the years. So anyone reviewing the past 40 years should clearly see all the factors ‘turn up the volume’ on open, deviant sexual behavior. It was gradual – very gradual. If we had gone from 1968 to Two and a Half Men, Spartacus, Game of Thrones and Dexter overnight, I am certain the public outcry would have been quick and decisive. Instead, last night, I happened to see a commercial that promoted a product that was better than Viagra.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
There should be a Facepalm Emoticon for the forum because I really feel like using it right now.

sw85 I have misjudged you.
I was operating under the assumption that you took male privilege and the old Double Standard (where women are judged far more harshly for sexual misbehavior than men) for granted, I didn’t know that you were an outright fan of such things.

Well, if by “double standard” you mean “two different standards for two different situations,” then it’s just reasonable, no?

.

So I was correct in assuming that you believe women should be punished much more severely than men when it comes to sexual sins then?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is rich coming from someone who calls himself an “Angry Atheist”.

As far as generalizing is concerned, I see nothing wrong with it. It is impossible not to generalize when it comes to human behavior because there is an exception to every rule, even the rule that there is an exception to every rule. So generalizing is necessary. BTW, if you don’t like generalization, why don’t you criticize those posters here who say things like, "Men have always treated women like sex objects"?

Trying to be clever are we

And the name is Angry not bitter.
Besides, if I was bitter how would that prevent me from seeing it in others?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I know reading things you disagree with is hard, but try reading it again. I said explicitly that something which is profane is not necessarily bad. It’s simply not sacred. All that is sacred is good and all that is evil is profane. Not all that is profane is evil and not all that is good is sacred. There are profane goods.

Laughter’s an example of a profane good. It’s good to laugh. But it doesn’t belong in the presence of the sacred. You shouldn’t burst out into hysterical laughter in the middle of a homily.

Bodily functions are good, too. It’s good for you to urinate; serious health problems arise from not urinating. Doesn’t mean you should unzip and let loose on the altar.

Sex is a good, but its a profane good. You shouldn’t have sex in church; that’s sacrilege. And you shouldn’t have sex with consecrated holy people, i.e., nuns and monks who are consecrated virgins.

The sacred/profane dichotomy overlaps with but is distinct from the good/evil dichotomy. Try reading Emile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade, both of whom talk about the sacred and the profane (and the latter of whom wrote a book with that as its title).

I was responding to what you wrote.
Here’s the definition of Profane:

1. to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : desecrate
2. to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

Link to source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profane

You will notice that neither of these 2 accepted definitions are in any way positive.

 

[sedonaman]

Trying to be clever are we

And the name is Angry not bitter.
Besides, if I was bitter how would that prevent me from seeing it in others?

Whether I’m bitter or not has nothing to do with the sex games I’ve seen women play, particularly in the workplace. Take my example of the woman employee having an affair with the boss, Mr. Bigg, to get promoted [ahead of not only men but other women, BTW] gets Mr. Bigg to dump her undesirable work off onto some poor Schmuckettelli just minding his own business and doing his job. Here is the question: Has the woman in this scenario offended Mr. Schmuckettelli in any way? Why or why not?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No one’s denying that women have historically been treated as sexual being. That stands to reason: sexuality is what distinguishes men from women. What is being denied is that (a) it’s wrong to recognize these distinctions, (b) it’s wrong to mold social attitudes according to those distinctions, and (c) the claim that women have historically been treated as if they were nothing more than walking vaginas.

I have never heard this claim made by anyone who isn’t a feminist (i.e., who isn’t politically invested in this questionable narrative). Hence why I asked if there’s any evidence to support it. I’d like to refute it, but I can’t refute an argument that isn’t being made.
At any rate, this is a diversion from the original point I was trying to make: that women are wired sexually in a different manner than men; that this difference in wiring (i.e., evolutionary programming) translates into an easier time remaining chaste; that, therefore, where chastity is socially valued, it follows that women will bear the burden of chastity. The reverse is true with respect to other things, such as courage and aggression.

Since you are apparently a Catholic (or at least an aspiring one) I assume Pope John Paul II the Great is a source that you would accept.

Pope John Paul II said in an official Church document that:
3. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry.

Link to source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

Pope John Paul II also said that:
The biblical text provides sufficient bases for recognizing the essential equality of man and woman from the point of view of their humanity.24 From the very beginning, both are persons, unlike the other living beings in the world about them. The woman is another “I” in a common humanity.

Link to source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear friend,

Hello again and thankyou for your response above.

Claims respecting God and the nature of man are not necessarily immodest if they are based upon deductions from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is what the Church and its doctors have done since the beginning and it is how doctrine is developed down through the ages. Having said that, dear friend, irreverent and immoderate speculation must avoided.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Don’t you see how claiming to speak for God (a divine all-powerful being) is arrogant?
Or at least not modest?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Just what are you actually advocating?
Are you saying that women should have harsher social and/or legal penalties applied to them when it comes to sexual misconduct?

Are you advocating the traditional approach where women are punished severely (perhaps even fatally) for sleeping around (or simply being accused of sleeping around) but when a man (especially a powerful man) is caught doing it people simply say that ‘boys will be boys?’

Are you unable or unwilling to answer these questions sw85?