Radical feminism and morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sedonaman said:
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?
Click to expand...
But what does that have to do with women in general?
 
Since no one has defined what a male-female relationship should look like today, I should point out what young men and young women were taught in the 1960s. The nuns at our Catholic school taught us to dance. We both held each other, clearly knowing that it was a sign of openness that was respectful. The thought of putting your hand anywhere else was unthinkable. Take anything you want to learn how to do. Any deviation from the strict rules meant there would be a problem - sometimes, a serious problem.

I started dating a young lady in the late 1970s. We both knew the rules, but since we were just starting, she said we should meet at a certain restaurant and drive our own cars. I gladly complied.

We talked. We talked about our families, our backgrounds, our interests and hopes and dreams. As time passed, things became romantic, both of us knowing our proper roles in a still developing relationship. We didn’t just go out to eat or do special things. We could go to a cider mill or take a walk or go to the mall. We enjoyed each other’s company.

She was poised, intelligent, dressed modestly, had a wonderful sense of humor and loved God. We went to Church together. She was raised Catholic but an unfortunate event in her teens brought her into contact with a Charismatic Christian group. I took her to my Church. I brought her flowers. We sent cards to each other. I opened doors for her. These were signs of sincere respect for her and signs that I valued her as a person and as a woman.

I had occasion to meet a few other young ladies. One was at a wedding reception, surrounded by young men who kept complimenting her about her beauty. I decided to talk to her, but it soon became obvious that she was not interested in having a conversation that did not involve complimenting her good looks. So physical beauty did not matter once I found out the other person was not open to a simple conversation that was open to what was inside both of us. That’s what mattered. And there were plenty of pretty girls.

We both knew there was a soul in each of us. But we also understood the normal biological differences between men and women and their characteristic roles in society. We may have been young in the 1960s, but we had basic knowledge about homosexuality, cross-dressing, bondage and sado-masochism and other properly described deviant (atypical) sexual behaviors. The word “orgy,” as in Roman Orgy, was understood by us as well. Let me be quick to point out that masturbation is a common deviant sexual behavior among men, Catholic and non-Catholic. Adultery and fornication were also regarded as deviant - meaning, not normal and definitely sinful behavior, and not conducive to a respectful, committed relationship.

Even among the young adults I know today who are nominally Catholic, cheating in a relationship is a Big Deal. A sense of commitment still exists to some degree, but, marriage, thanks to the quick, easy (from a legal standpoint) No-Fault Divorce that went national in the 1980s, is viewed upon with suspicion and distrust. Those who were wounded by it as children sometimes see it as a risk they are unwilling to take as adults today. I can’t think of a better way to tear families apart than to turn divorce into a quick, cheap and disrespectful assault on the family - a business transaction. I opened the paper to the classifieds in the 1980s and saw this type of ad - lots of them: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

So, today, let’s have open scandal. Let’s put all atypical sexual sexual behaviors in our faces and in our ears whenever we look at a magazine or TV shows or in the movies. Let’s celebrate it. Let’s call it anything but atypical. Sure, critics of the Church like to point out the following: "Why is the Church so focused here and - seemingly - ignoring, and not equally condemning something else? What? Over the last 40 years, did any Church official say that Adultery, Fornication, Masturbation, Prostitution, or Artificial Contraception were good or downgraded as sins?

This isn’t about turning back clocks. This is about the explosion in treating women as nothing but a collection of body parts. In the 1970s, WHO opened topless bars, strip clubs and PORN/Adult Bookstores? Who paid for the rent, the printing, the distribution and for the prostitutes involved? Anybody? Do you think a TV show about a guy who works a little, gets paid a lot of money and whose hobbies are drinking and having sex with lots of different women is funny? How about cartoons? A little research will show that prior to South Park and Family Guy, cartoons were meant for kids. Period. Not a Family Guy episode where “Jesus” comes to dinner and the husband whispers a request that results in his wife’s beasts increasing in size. These are facts we cannot, in good conscience, ignore. And we cannot allow ourselves the OK to exchange the truth for a lie, even when it comes from a comedian speaking as if he had any authority to tell us what to do: “There’s no such thing as bad language.” Comedy used to be about funny, about amusement, not about social teaching or propagandizing the masses.

If we, meaning Catholics, are the salt of the earth, then indifference means we have lost our savor and our salt is worthless. We are to present the truth with charity:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

God tells us to be either hot or cold or there will be a consequence:

bible.cc/revelation/3-16.htm

To the Catholics and non-Catholics reading this, the Sexual Revolution did not result in solutions that were helpful to society as a whole.

And the law is getting tougher on what the radicals called “a victimless crime”:

tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article1204317.ece

Peace,
Ed
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus says this about marriage:

bible.cc/matthew/19-10.htm

bible.cc/matthew/19-11.htm

And Paul tells us this about being single:

bible.cc/1_corinthians/7-7.htm

So not being married is OK.

Peace,
Ed
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Don’t you see how claiming to speak for God (a divine all-powerful being) is arrogant?
Or at least not modest?
Click to expand...
Dear friend,

Hello again and thankyou for above response.

Most certainly, if what one is saying has no foundation whatsoever in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, or cannot reasonably be infered from the same.

Catholics, dear friend, believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, so that when they (the Scriptures) speak God speaks. However, it certainly is arrogant and irreverent to pass off one’s own personal opinions as God speaking when these are devoid of any biblical or Church authority. On the other hand, If what we are saying is fully in accord with the bible or Church teaching, or deducible from the same, then we can be sure that we are speaking the truth and not being arrogant.

God bless, my dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
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?
…
Click to expand...
Harsher than what? What they get now or more than a man would get, all other things being equal?

Perhaps harsher [than what they get now] penalties are necessary to overcome society’s inclination to believe that women are somehow incapable of evil.

In Los Angeles, men are sent to the “men’s central jail” while women are sent to the Sybil Brand Institute For Women. IOW, no more “Camp Cupcake”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Camp,_Alderson
 
This business of calling women sex objects, and justifying it by saying that they are, they just aren’t “only” sex objects reminds me of a piece a Catholic friend shared with me years ago. It’s an excerpt from ‘The Midnight Dancers’ by Regina Doman. A man and woman are talking, and the man (Paul) is explaining how Satan put a special mirror in front of men that distorted the way that women look. It reduced them, made them look like toys. He explains how there are “good” toys and “bad” toys. The bad toys are the ones you look at in magazines, the ones that you don’t take home to your parents because they aren’t virtuous. The good toys are the ones that you commit to, the ones that you marry, the ones that you are proud to be with. The girl he is speaking to, Rachel, says that she knows all of this, and she already knows what she’s supposed to do. She’s wants to be a good toy, that’s what she’s supposed to do.

Paul looks at her and growls that she should never say that…because she’s not a toy at all.

That’s what happens when women are judged for their sexuality and experiences. They aren’t looked at as people. Their feelings, minds, viewpoints, all come secondary to whether or not they are “chaste” or “virtuous”, and they are not looked at as people. They are simply seen as toys. Some may be considered good toys, but they are toys nonetheless.

I found the full excerpt here if anyone wants to read it.

chaodee.tumblr.com/post/14829211676/my-heart-the-following-is-an-excerpt-from-the-midnight
 
sedonaman said:
Harsher than what? What they get now or more than a man would get, all other things being equal?

Perhaps harsher [than what they get now] penalties are necessary to overcome society’s inclination to believe that women are somehow incapable of evil.

In Los Angeles, men are sent to the “men’s central jail” while women are sent to the Sybil Brand Institute For Women. IOW, no more “Camp Cupcake”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Camp,_Alderson
Click to expand...
So how many stones – do you think it will take. Some of you are sounding more like -you would want the implementation of Muslim law.
 
sw85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Back to the male privilege. Women should be more shamed when they give up their chastity because it’s easier for them. Men shouldn’t be held as accountable because it’s harder.
  1. I strongly disagree that women have it easier. I think they may in the beginging of the relationship, but as the emotional bond grows it becomes more difficult for them to keep that distance.
  2. Everyone has a cross to bear, right? Everyone is held accountable for their own actions. At least, that’s what Catholics say when it comes to homosexuals. Its hard, but its their cross to stay single and chaste. I guess its different when its a straight man. Then he’s let off easy.
If everyone is called to be pure, then everyone needs to be held to the same standards with the same punishments, social and otherwise when they fail. Even if men have it harder, it shouldn’t matter. You shouldn’t think less of the woman than you would of him.
 
Walking_Home said:
So how many stones – do you think it will take. Some of you are sounding more like -you would want the implementation of Muslim law.
Click to expand...
A woman pays a hit-man $10,000 to murder her husband so she can collect his life insurance. He gets the death penalty; she gets 11 years in Camp Cupcake. A man pays a hit-woman $10,000 to murder his wife; he gets the death penalty; she gets 11 years in Camp Cupcake. What could be fairer?
 
Sedonaman-I would really appreciate it if when you quote me you don’t add things to it that I never said. That makes me look like I hold a viewpoint that I don’t and it’s very rude.
 
sedonaman said:
Thanks for calling attention to my mistake.

:rotfl: LMAO.

Happy?
Click to expand...
I think that your time would be better spent defending the position that its ok to hold women to a higher standard of chastity and come down harder on them when they fail because of “the way men are wired” and how that outlook is not male privilege.
 
sedonaman said:
A woman pays a hit-man $10,000 to murder her husband so she can collect his life insurance. He gets the death penalty; she gets 11 years in Camp Cupcake. A man pays a hit-woman $10,000 to murder his wife; he gets the death penalty; she gets 11 years in Camp Cupcake. What could be fairer?
Click to expand...
From what I have read – womens prison is not the “Camp Cupcake” you make it out to be. And yes – women get sentenced to the death penalty too.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I think that your time would be better spent defending the position that its ok to hold women to a higher standard of chastity and come down harder on them when they fail because of “the way men are wired” and how that outlook is not male privilege.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that women should be held to a higher standard of chastity than men, nor claimed that men should be held to a lower one because of “the way men are wired” and “how that outlook is not male privilege.” I perceive that women who make claims of “male privilege” see high-powered executives with privileged and leap to conclusion that all men have power and privilege. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
sedonaman said:
Harsher than what? What they get now or more than a man would get, all other things being equal?

Perhaps harsher [than what they get now] penalties are necessary to overcome society’s inclination to believe that women are somehow incapable of evil.

In Los Angeles, men are sent to the “men’s central jail” while women are sent to the Sybil Brand Institute For Women. IOW, no more “Camp Cupcake”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Camp,_Alderson
Click to expand...
You are bitter aren’t you?
 
sedonaman said:
I never claimed that women should be held to a higher standard of chastity than men, nor claimed that men should be held to a lower one because of “the way men are wired” and “how that outlook is not male privilege.” I perceive that women who make claims of “male privilege” see high-powered executives with privileged and leap to conclusion that all men have power and privilege. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
My comment about male privilege was a response to someone else’s claims about standards of chastity. Someone else used that phrase with him earlier when he was saying that women are sex objects. I’m sorry, when you got sarcastic about my comment I assumed you disagreed with my rebuttal.
 
sedonaman said:
I never claimed that women should be held to a higher standard of chastity than men, nor claimed that men should be held to a lower one because of “the way men are wired” and “how that outlook is not male privilege.” I perceive that women who make claims of “male privilege” see high-powered executives with privileged and leap to conclusion that all men have power and privilege. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
No sw85 was the one who said that.
Although I am beginning to suspect he was just trolling.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
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?’
Click to expand...
I’m saying that if chastity is held to be a virtue, it’s perfectly logical for women to be held to higher standards for it than men, because chastity comes more easily to them by nature.

You can get out of this logic a few different ways:

(1) You can argue men are no different than women with respect to their sexuality. You’re going against science here, though.

(2) You can argue that differences in sexuality exist, but we shouldn’t take them into consideration when forming our attitudes. I see no reason to believe this, and it flies in the face of common sense. You’d literally be saying we should not deal with people according to reality. And I can reduce this absurdity by applying the exact same logic in areas that would cause substantive harm for women. For instance, I might point out that if we can’t take men and women’s differences in physical strength into account, it’s grossly sexist that men have to shoulder the burden of military service, and demand that women be conscripted in large numbers in order to close the gap in their representation ratios.

(3) You can say chastity should not be considered a virtue. I’m open to this argument, but it’s one you will actually need to make, instead of just parroting the equalitarian zeitgeist.
AngryAtheist8 said:
I am glad that you admit that what you’re advocating is impractical and does not necessarily lead to anything good (if implemented).
Click to expand...
By contrast, I appreciate the tacit admission that your beliefs are based on falsehood and that you don’t think lying is bad.
AngryAtheist8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dude, those are verbs, not nouns. If you’re going to substitute your gaps in philosophical knowledge with spot-checking the dictionary, you can at least look up the correct word class.

“To profane something” is to strip it of its sacral character, i.e., to treat it in a manner unworthy of it. Notice you can only profane that which is sacred, which is why it’s evil to do that. You can’t profane poop, for instance, because it’s already profane. Is pooping evil? Of course not.

Again, read Mircea Eliade’s The Sacred and The Profane.
AngryAtheist8 said:
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
Click to expand...
None of this conflicts with anything I’ve said.

Women have been mistreated throughout history. (Including non-Christian cultures). It doesn’t follow they have been treated as nothing more than semen receptacles. The fact that marriage is sacramental and things like fornication, concubinage, adultery, and divorce have been regarded as evil (with the exception of hellholes like Henry VIII’s court) is evidence of this. Why bother with “marriage” at all if women are disposable, interchangeable baby factories?

Moreover, nothing he says requires that women be treated exactly the same as men. It simply requires that their ontological value be understood as equivalent to that of men, which I haven’t denied at all. The two sides of a coin are equally the same coin – it doesn’t follow that they are exactly the same in every respect.
AngryAtheist8 said:
No sw85 was the one who said that.
Although I am beginning to suspect he was just trolling.
Click to expand...
I’ve been harboring the same suspicion of you, considering how utterly obstinate you are about not actually making an argument for anything.

Believe it or not it’s possible not to be a self-worshipping liberal about literally everything. Lots of people pull it off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top