The feminization of society

[Jay74]

I found this to be an interesting perspective. I was hesistant to post it, because I feared some women may misunderstand his points and be offended. But in the end I believed his point to be valuable, so I wanted to share it.

Keep in mind, he emphasizes the importance of feminine virtues, yet he is saying that masculine virtues are necessary as well. I agree with that – that’s part of why I support defending traditional marriage, since masculine and feminine parenting is invaluable.

Blessings to all.

---

Judeo-Christian values, part 22: The feminization of society
By Dennis Prager​

Posted: September 13, 2005

As a result of the repudiation of Judeo-Christian values, we are witnessing the ascendance of the feminine in Western society.

There are two reasons for this. One is the overriding belief in equality, which to those who reject Judeo-Christian values means sameness. Judeo-Christian values emphatically affirm the equality of the sexes. In fact, given that the creation story in Genesis proceeds from primitive to elevated, the last creation, woman, can easily be seen as the most elevated of the creations. Every man knows how much a good woman helps him transcend his animal nature.

Judeo-Christian values do not conflate equality with sameness. But the Left rejects any suggestion of innate sexual differences. That is why the president of Harvard University nearly lost his job for merely suggesting that one reason there are fewer women in engineering and science faculties is that the female and male brains differ in their capacities in these areas. A secular liberal who advocates affirmative action based on sex, Harvard’s president nevertheless also has – or had, until his humiliation at the hands of his faculty – a belief in seeking truth.

And the truth is that men and women are profoundly different.

To view the entire article, visit worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46296

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I have no particular problem with the fostering of the true feminine. But what is being promoted is not the true feminine, but a false feminine.

Whenever it is suggested that there is no difference between the masculine and the feminine, one should immediately be on guard. To suggest that any differences are merely culturally determined is simply dangerous hogwash. Only men can be fathers; only women can be mothers; no culture can change that. Promoting a feminine that is not differentiated from the masculine dishonours women in a horrible manner.

The worst part of it is that there also exists a false masculine – more than one, in fact. The older false masculine gave rise to the “macho man”, and other such caricatures. The modern one gives rise to the wimp who will never take a stand on anything.

There is a simple antidote to both false images: complimentarity. And for complimentarity to work, there must be differences which are acknowledged and respected. For myself, heaven only knows where I’d have ended up if I had not become the husband of a truly feminine woman! And there’s nothing weak about the truly feminine, thank heaven, because weakness couldn’t have been of any help to me – or most other people I’ve met.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Steph700]

I am a woman and I fully understand the writer’s points- however I do not agree with them. Do I find what he says offensive? No, I think a much better word would be absurd.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe there are some differences in men and women- beyond biological. However, to argue that a Judeo-Christian society is necessarily a masculine society is, frankly, eroneous. My study of intercultural communication isn’t extensive, but I do remember the models of feminine/masculine societies. This has nothing to do with them being Christian or not. For instance, culture within latin american countries is considered quite feminine. Can you think of a more CATHOLIC region?? Please tell me where tell me how a more masculine culture is more Judeo-Christian.

 

[fix]

Gerry Hunter:

I have no particular problem with the fostering of the true feminine. But what is being promoted is not the true feminine, but a false feminine.

Whenever it is suggested that there is no difference between the masculine and the feminine, one should immediately be on guard. To suggest that any differences are merely culturally determined is simply dangerous hogwash. Only men can be fathers; only women can be mothers; no culture can change that. Promoting a feminine that is not differentiated from the masculine dishonours women in a horrible manner.

The worst part of it is that there also exists a false masculine – more than one, in fact. The older false masculine gave rise to the “macho man”, and other such caricatures. The modern one gives rise to the wimp who will never take a stand on anything.

There is a simple antidote to both false images: complimentarity. And for complimentarity to work, there must be differences which are acknowledged and respected. For myself, heaven only knows where I’d have ended up if I had not become the husband of a truly feminine woman! And there’s nothing weak about the truly feminine, thank heaven, because weakness couldn’t have been of any help to me – or most other people I’ve met.

Blessings,

Gerry

I skimmed Prager’s article and think your response is very good. Prager is making a case that I think bends in the right direction, but a more accurate assement would be that our culture is not just overly feminine, but a false type of feminine.

What we have today is really an effete culture in many ways.

 

[ChrisR246]

Steph700:

However, to argue that a Judeo-Christian society is necessarily a masculine society is, frankly, eroneous. My study of intercultural communication isn’t extensive, but I do remember the models of feminine/masculine societies. This has nothing to do with them being Christian or not.

Agreed.
IMO Dennis Prager confuses Traditional Western Culture with Judeo - Christian Culture. I’d agree the later heavily influenced the former, but they are not the same thing.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Gerry Hunter:

I have no particular problem with the fostering of the true feminine. But what is being promoted is not the true feminine, but a false feminine.

I prefer Fr. Richard Rohr’s characterization of these as the shallow feminine and the shallow masculine. He sees them as growth points on the way to the deep feminine and deep masculine that should inform the wisdom of the elders. Think wise old women and wise old men… you do not expect old heads on young shoulders. It would not be natural or even possible for a sixteen year old, or even a thirty year old, to think like that.

As long as there is the complimentarity of the deep masculine and deep feminine guiding a society, the energy of the shallow masculine and feminine existing in the young isn’t destructive in the larger sense. It makes them, rather, as fires in a well-built hearth.

 

[Strider]

I can think of a fine model for masculine and for feminine. In fact, I’d have to say they’re perfect, wouldn’t you?
The complimentarity is exemplary even though mother - son, created - Creator.

 

[Jay74]

Steph700:

I am a woman and I fully understand the writer’s points- however I do not agree with them. Do I find what he says offensive? No, I think a much better word would be absurd.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe there are some differences in men and women- beyond biological. However, to argue that a Judeo-Christian society is necessarily a masculine society is, frankly, eroneous. My study of intercultural communication isn’t extensive, but I do remember the models of feminine/masculine societies. This has nothing to do with them being Christian or not. For instance, culture within latin american countries is considered quite feminine. Can you think of a more CATHOLIC region?? Please tell me where tell me how a more masculine culture is more Judeo-Christian.

I can respect that, even though I agree with most of what Dennis says.

I think a good example of a masculine society that disregards feminine virtue are the brutal Islamic theocracies that can be found in the Middle East. Violence, terorrism, subjugation of women, honor killings (fathers and brothers may murder their daughters and sisters if they suspect they have been with a male, why the male is let off the hook is beyond me), etc. The femine virtue of compassion would go a long way in defusing the terror (I mean, if the terrorists had more compassion, they would be less likely to blow others up). The flip side is masculine virtue, when properly guided, is more likely to fight against such evils.

I agree with the other poster who said that both are complimentary. Masculine traits not kept in check traits often violently and promiscuously wreak havoc on a society. Feminine traits not kept in check wreak havoc as well through over permissiveness and pacifism.

God not only created men and women to need each other, but he created society to need both as well.

Blessings.

 

[caroljm36]

No offense taken, and it’s already familiar territory to me since reading “The Feminization of American Culture” by Ann Douglas several times over. It’s actually a fairly old book. She talks about the harshness and vigor of early Calvinism in America, and how it was slowly watered down over the generations until you have…nothing much.

I have never forgotten the lesson of that book–that when you dilute a faith, the results may not be immediately apparent but will show up in succeeding generations. I mean, when they got to Unitarianism the faith was pretty well all gone, and young people naturally thought, why bother with it. I think many of us descendants of once-fervent Protestants (Methodist missionaries in my case) are victims of that process. I hope it’s not too late to save Catholicism. It’s the Douglas theory that makes me such a reactionary I guess…

 

[bengeorge]

caroljm36:

I hope it’s not too late to save Catholicism.

The Church is Christ’s, in which case we have hope and faith, or it isn’t.

 

[LSK]

[QUOTEThe femine virtue of compassion would go a long way in defusing the terror (I mean, if the terrorists had more compassion, they would be less likely to blow others up). The flip side is masculine virtue, when properly guided, is more likely to fight against such evils.

I agree with the other poster who said that both are complimentary. Masculine traits not kept in check traits often violently and promiscuously wreak havoc on a society. Feminine traits not kept in check wreak havoc as well through over permissiveness and pacifism.

God not only created men and women to need each other, but he created society to need both as well.

Blessings.
[/QUOTE]

I think that is a wonderful way to put it…I was talking to my confessor about the anger I felt during the aftermath of Katrina, and how it seems (note, I said ‘seems’) that whenever there is a breakdown in society it is characterized by the sexual assault of women and children. It made me so angry that I, as a woman, had to be careful that I did not ‘take out my anger’ on perfectly wonderful, innocent men in California because of what a small percentage were doing in New Orleans!

He very wisely reminded me that there had been a breakdown in society as to true manhood and true womanhood. That the move towards allowing women to express themselves in avenues other than marriage and motherhood had swept away the appreciation for those institutions - that we had, essentially, thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. So instead of men and women working to assure that every child has a chance at an education, that men and women both are honored for their choices in life in terms of work or marriage (or both - or neither - though I am still trying to figure out the ‘not work’ part and can only think of winning the lotto as a solution ) we somehow denigrated men, which led to anger and an increase in violence against women.

I’m not sure if his assessment was completely right - I am not a sociologist - but he did help me refute the sin of despair and the sin of anger. I was able, with his guidance, to focus on those men who are risking their LIVES bringing others to safety, as well as those men who protected the weak and vulnerable during that horrific time to the best of their ability (and in peril of their own lives).

 

[InnocentIII]

After having read the article there are a few points I think are worthwhile making.

1. Overall I think Prager is just stating the obvious. Having had 15 years experience as a teacher in both co-ed and single sex schools it is obvious that boys and girls think differently and that this is obvious even today after 40 years of propaganda trying to convince them of the opposite. Of course, many teachers will continue to deny this publicly to preserve the world view they were taught in teacher training but few would deny it in private. And I have seen the impact of the “feminisation” of education in the proliferation of “empathy tasks”, book marks, and “projects”, all of which put a premium on effort as opposed to outcome. A classic example is a history text in use in our schools for Grades 7 and 8 which is full of the “what do you feel” type questions. Boys just refuse to answer them and tune out to education because they don’t understand what their feelings have to do with learning. So even though I think it is obnvious what he is saying, I do agree that it needs to be said over and over for the benefit of those who know there is something rotten in the stae of society but can’t put their finger on it.
2. I find his conclusion a little imprecise. Societies governed by masculine values can be as destructive as those goverened by feminine values. The difference is that those with masculine values tend to be destructive of other societies, which is why masculaine values are often predominant in young and expanding societies, while feminine values tend to be destructive of its own society which is why they predominate in old societies. It is only when the two are balanced and in harmony that society functions at its best. It is not a matter of choosing one over the other but of avoiding the dominance of one over the other. As an example, when I was young I was taught to respect women in such ways as walking outside them on the road so that if a car passed in rain I would get drenched. It may sound silly now but it was a perfect example of the blending of a male value (chivalry) with a female value (compassion) to produce an outcome beneficial to all (respect). Feminism has done much to destroy chivalry and therefore respect for it is an integral component of it.
3. One example I would like to raise because it is important in the context of the Church is nuturing and pastoring. I have been told by many “feminist” women that women are better at pastoral work because nuturing is a feminine value. In fact my experience has shown the opposite. Pastoring requires sympathy, and the ability to focus on sound advice. Nurturing however requires empathy and the ability to focus on support. They are profoundly different functions yet pastoring has effectively become nurturing in today’s world because of this fallacy that being a good nurturer makes you fit for a pastoral role. Its like networking - women co-operate, men bond. Men actually have very good people skills, women have very good “children skills” (if you don’t believe me, try working for a female boss and a male boss and then note the differences). Complementariness means each value is morrored by an equal but not identical value. Only in their harmony can we find the true image.

 

[fix]

InnocentIII:

1. One example I would like to raise because it is important in the context of the Church is nuturing and pastoring. I have been told by many “feminist” women that women are better at pastoral work because nuturing is a feminine value. In fact my experience has shown the opposite. Pastoring requires sympathy, and the ability to focus on sound advice. Nurturing however requires empathy and the ability to focus on support. They are profoundly different functions yet pastoring has effectively become nurturing in today’s world because of this fallacy that being a good nurturer makes you fit for a pastoral role. Its like networking - women co-operate, men bond. Men actually have very good people skills, women have very good “children skills” (if you don’t believe me, try working for a female boss and a male boss and then note the differences). Complementariness means each value is morrored by an equal but not identical value. Only in their harmony can we find the true image.

Great wisdom and very interesting. I think you have characterized, in a few short lines, much of the error we see in our civilization today.