Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[Xantippe]

I actually did see a marriage like this in action once. Knew the couple through the very trad church we both attended. Their daughter, age 5, got cancer. Husband eventually demanded that the daughter be sent to live with his wife’s parents across the country because he felt his wife was too busy taking the kid to chemo and dealing with the results to be a “proper” wife to him. I mean, how DARE she prioritize cuddling their vomiting, hurting child over having sex on demand/a perfect house/having a spectacular dinner on the table every night?

She went along with it, too–admitted that she missed her kid sometimes (I wonder how the little girl felt?!) but said that a) it was her husband’s job to make major decisions, not hers and b) that at least her husband agreed they should try for another kid–one who, presumably, wouldn’t be so inconsiderate as to contract leukemia.

But hey, at least he got what he wanted, so the priorities were in order…

Wow.

That reminds me of 1 Corinthians 5:1: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate.”

Any time a “Christian” wants to do things that would be regarded as shocking by mainstream society, I think it’s time to STOP and THINK about whether this thing needs to be done. I believe, personally, that you need 10X the good reasons to do something like that (for example, if the medical treatment was actually much better in the grandparents’ area).

St. Paul talks a lot about not needlessly violating mainstream cultural norms through a misplaced sense of liberty.

(This idea has some connection to the idea of the OP.)

 

[DarkLight]

I actually did see a marriage like this in action once. Knew the couple through the very trad church we both attended. Their daughter, age 5, got cancer. Husband eventually demanded that the daughter be sent to live with his wife’s parents across the country because he felt his wife was too busy taking the kid to chemo and dealing with the results to be a “proper” wife to him. I mean, how DARE she prioritize cuddling their vomiting, hurting child over having sex on demand/a perfect house/having a spectacular dinner on the table every night?

She went along with it, too–admitted that she missed her kid sometimes (I wonder how the little girl felt?!) but said that a) it was her husband’s job to make major decisions, not hers and b) that at least her husband agreed they should try for another kid–one who, presumably, wouldn’t be so inconsiderate as to contract leukemia.

But hey, at least he got what he wanted, so the priorities were in order…

I’m honestly wondering where the priest was in all this, or whether he knew. I can’t imagine most priests I know wouldn’t have sharp words for the man in this situation. Even (possibly even especially) traditional priests.

 

[AdamP88]

I will take another option, being able and willing to kick anyone to the curb if I am not getting what I want.I knew one guy who was a natural. He may have had 99 problems but a woman was not one of them in contrast to my father and other men I have known who did all the right things by your book, but strangely it was never enough.Interesting perhaps in the same gruesome way that a train wreck is interesting.

Not sure many Catholic men would want to emulate that.

 

[UbiCaritas]

I’m honestly wondering where the priest was in all this, or whether he knew. I can’t imagine most priests I know wouldn’t have sharp words for the man in this situation. Even (possibly even especially) traditional priests.

That I don’t know. In fairness to the priests at that parish, I find it highly doubtful at best that they would have approved of this sort of thing at all. And I do know that my current priest, who has traditional leanings in a smells-n-bells sort of way but not in a Tridentine-Mass-Only sort of way, would probably tear the parents in question a new one before weeping over the sheer cruelty of the situation.

(In case you can’t tell, he’s a wonderful priest.)

ETA for clarity

 

[AdamP88]

That I don’t know. In fairness to the priests at that parish, I find it highly doubtful at best that they would have approved of this sort of thing at all. And I do know that my current priest, who has traditional leanings in a smells-n-bells sort of way but not in a Tridentine-Mass-Only sort of way, would probably tear the parents in question a new one before weeping over the sheer cruelty of the situation.

(In case you can’t tell, he’s a wonderful priest.)

ETA for clarity

lol…that’s hardly “traditional leanings”. That’s just “leanings toward richer liturgy”.

 

[starshiptrooper]

You’ll kick your little kids to the curb if you aren’t getting exactly what you want from them?



I don’t think you’ve figured out how this whole “parenthood” thing actually works.

Or you’d kick a disabled, pregnant or sick wife to the curb if she couldn’t deliver what you wanted?



Do you think that your hypothetical future wife ought to kick you to the curb if you ever get sick or disabled?

In my Blue Pill days, one of my girlfriends broke up with me, completely unexpected at the time. I was smart enough to react properly. I just shrugged, said “Okay,” and walked out without looking back. It may have been bad news, but I was not going to lose any sleep over it.

Is your Red Pill guy a married guy with kids, or just a single guy?

If he’s a single guy, I’m not very impressed. Also, if he could manage his life better, he wouldn’t have 99 problems. My husband does not have 99 problems.

Single of course, he has a beautiful girlfriend eager and willing to please. He is in good shape, confident, and would have no problem replacing his girlfriend if he ever had to.

Bear in mind that I don’t think that wives should get everything they want, or that husbands shouldn’t have boundaries–I believe in boundaries for everybody (including kids), and everybody getting to have needs (men, women and children).

What part of that is wrong?

The part where I do not trust you.

 

[DarkLight]

Single of course, he has a beautiful girlfriend eager and willing to please. He is in good shape, confident, and would have no problem replacing his girlfriend if he ever had to.

Is this individual Catholic? Is he holding to Catholic or even Christian morality? Does he want children? Does he want to have sex?

Is he willing to work to please his girlfriend as well? Would he stay with her if she was in an accident and was injured and couldn’t do the same things? If she needed assistance for a while to take care of herself, would he do it?

 

[Xantippe]

In my Blue Pill days, one of my girlfriends broke up with me, completely unexpected at the time. I was smart enough to react properly. I just shrugged, said “Okay,” and walked out without looking back. It may have been bad news, but I was not going to lose any sleep over it.Single of course, he has a beautiful girlfriend eager and willing to please. He is in good shape, confident, and would have no problem replacing his girlfriend if he ever had to.The part where I do not trust you.

How long do you think a “beautiful girlfriend eager and willing to please” sticks around, with no marriage, no children, and no home? I suspect that there’s usually a “surprise” pregnancy in that scenario. Which is why it’s kind of dumb even for the guy.

If about half of first pregnancies (48%) are to unwed mothers and the median age at first birth in the US is 25.7 and non-college women typically have their first baby out of wedlock, it’s a pretty sure thing that a single guy who is dating an early or mid-20s non-college woman is going to wind up an unwed father, no matter how big an Alpha he is. It’s simply a matter of time.

cbsnews.com/news/almost-half-of-first-babies-in-us-born-to-unwed-mothers/

Even just from a secular perspective, it’s a lousy deal for a woman to tie herself down to a guy with no marriage and hang around like a dog waiting for a tennis ball. At some point, the tennis ball (marriage, children, and a home) needs to make an appearance, or what was all of this for?

One of the rules of thumb for marriage-minded grownup women (over 22ish) is not to date for longer than a year without an engagement. There are probably some reasonable exceptions to that, but it is important to not allow people to waste our time. I, for example, was engaged within three months of meeting my future husband at 22. If he had kept me cooling my heels for longer than a year without an engagement for no good reason, I would have been ticked off and (sad to say) would probably have moved on.

What don’t you trust me about? I do believe in boundaries for everybody and everybody having needs–I think that is actually pretty clear from my posting history. What is the alternative? Boundaries for only some people and needs for only some people? That’s not even workable, as I was pointing out earlier–eventually, the person who isn’t allowed boundaries or needs gets run into the ground, and they can’t give anymore. There is no perpetual motion machine–it’s impossible to take and take and take from another human being indefinitely.

 

[DarkLight]

I also feel the need to point out the in-practicd failure rates of contraception are much higher than the advertised ones. Even if the couple is contracepting, regular sex tends to eventually produce a baby.

 

[AdamP88]

I believe the words to describe these “red pill” men are selfish and individualistic.

I mean, they essentially seem to view women as being solely there to satisfy their wants and needs. Their idea of a relationship is completely one-sided.

Most of the derogatory comments about “blue pill” men seem to be aimed at detracting from the marriages and success of these men. My guess is that the majority of red pill men are simply unsuccessful at romance and professionally and that’s why they spend all their time trying to find problems with other people’s relationships.

And realistically speaking, how many women actually want to be in a relationship with a “red pill” man?

 

[Xantippe]

SST,

Come to think of it, what do you actually want from women?

On the one hand, you are mad at women for not being all chaste as the driven snow.

On the other hand, your role model is a guy whose lifestyle presumably depends on women who are not chaste.

Note that only the less chaste, less family-oriented, less future-oriented women are going to go for what that guy offers… So, adopting his approach automatically means making a lot of compromises in terms of the type of woman one is going to date.

As Donald Trump would say, SAD.

 

[starshiptrooper]

How long do you think a “beautiful girlfriend eager and willing to please” sticks around, with no marriage, no children, and no home? I suspect that there’s usually a “surprise” pregnancy in that scenario. Which is why it’s kind of dumb even for the guy.

She knows she is replaceable. If she does not like it, the door is always an option.

If about half of first pregnancies (48%) are to unwed mothers and the median age at first birth in the US is 25.7 and non-college women typically have their first baby out of wedlock, it’s a pretty sure thing that a single guy who is dating an early or mid-20s non-college woman is going to wind up an unwed father, no matter how big an Alpha he is. It’s simply a matter of time.

Birth control is not just something for the for sexually liberated woman and soon there will be a middle ground for men between condoms and vasectomies. The effects of this will be interesting. The upcoming changes will be another sexual revolution.

Even just from a secular perspective, it’s a lousy deal for a woman to tie herself down to a guy with no marriage and hang around like a dog waiting for a tennis ball. At some point, the tennis ball (marriage, children, and a home) needs to make an appearance, or what was all of this for?

She can blame other women for putting out without a promise of security. It works for women as long as men still play by the old set of rules while accommodating women. What happens when Atlas shrugs though?

One of the rules of thumb for marriage-minded grownup women (over 22ish) is not to date for longer than a year without an engagement. There are probably some reasonable exceptions to that, but it is important to not allow people to waste our time. I, for example, was engaged within three months of meeting my future husband at 22. If he had kept me cooling my heels for longer than a year without an engagement for no good reason, I would have been ticked off and (sad to say) would probably have moved on.

That we can agree on.

What don’t you trust me about? I do believe in boundaries for everybody and everybody having needs–I think that is actually pretty clear from my posting history. What is the alternative? Boundaries for only some people and needs for only some people? That’s not even workable, as I was pointing out earlier–eventually, the person who isn’t allowed boundaries or needs gets run into the ground, and they can’t give anymore. There is no perpetual motion machine–it’s impossible to take and take and take from another human being indefinitely.

You are a feminist and I trust those just about as far as I can throw them (which is not very far given the rise of fat acceptance). They talk a good game but when it comes to specifics, they are invariably a group of power-hungry, misandrists who are utterly opposed to male interests.

 

[AdamP88]

I think your use of the term “male interests” says a lot about your world view. You’ve basically adopted the male version of radical feminism.
For you it seems to be men vs. women
Fortunately, that is not how most Catholic men and women view marriage and relationships.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I believe the words to describe these “red pill” men are selfish and individualistic.

Selfish in the Objectivist sense of the term.

Most of the derogatory comments about “blue pill” men seem to be aimed at detracting from the marriages and success of these men. My guess is that the majority of red pill men are simply unsuccessful at romance and professionally and that’s why they spend all their time trying to find problems with other people’s relationships.

Right, it has nothing to do with watching guys I know stuck in sexless marriages and needing to ask permission from the shrewish boss (who let her appearance go for years) to go to poker night once a month with their buddies. I would rather play Russian roulette with a M1911A1.

And realistically speaking, how many women actually want to be in a relationship with a “red pill” man?

Watch what they do, not what they say. To hear Xantippe talk, the modern woman wants a skinny metrosexual who gets affirmative consent before holding a woman’s hand, when in reality they just bought millions of copies of a book about a billionaire who does the exact opposite.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Selfish in the Objectivist sense of the term.Right, it has nothing to do with watching guys I know stuck in sexless marriages and needing to ask permission from the shrewish boss (who let her appearance go for years) to go to poker night once a month with their buddies. I would rather play Russian roulette with a M1911A1.Watch what they do, not what they say.

Again, why the anger and bitterness? No one is conscripted into marriage. Don’t get married; it’s not like it’s hard to avoid. I don’t think anyone here thinks you’re doing anyone a disservice by staying single.

 

[DarkLight]

Birth control is not just something for the for sexually liberated woman and soon there will be a middle ground for men between condoms and vasectomies. The effects of this will be interesting. The upcoming changes will be another sexual revolution.

A lot of birth control methods for women don’t work nearly as well as people would like to think, especially when you take the actual use statistics rather than the perfect use ones. I see no particular reason to believe birth control for men would be different.

Sex results in pregnancy. Birth control makes the chance lower, but if you keep having sex you’re likely to end up with a pregnancy sooner or later.

She can blame other women for putting out without a promise of security. It works for women as long as men still play by the old set of rules while accommodating women. What happens when Atlas shrugs?

It seems to me that one cannot adopt this attitude and then complain about the characteristics of women. Not every type of woman is going to want every type of man. Sure there are women out there who are willing to “put out” without the promise of security, but they’re generally not going to be the same women who are interested in a long-term supportive relationship.

I can’t help but wonder if a number of these guys who are complaining about how awful women are, are having this issue because they themselves bring nothing to the table but money and sex.

One would hardly expect, for example, to score even the most traditional anti-feminist submissive Catholic woman with such behavior. It’s going to appeal to exactly the kind of woman who’s looking for a “thrill” and nothing more.

 

[AdamP88]

Selfish in the Objectivist sense of the term.Right, it has nothing to do with watching guys I know stuck in sexless marriages and needing to ask permission from the shrewish boss (who let her appearance go for years) to go to poker night once a month with their buddies. I would rather play Russian roulette with a M1911A1.Watch what they do, not what they say. To hear Xantippe talk, the modern woman wants a skinny metrosexual who gets affirmative consent before holding a woman’s hand, when in reality they just bought millions of copies of a book about a billionaire who does the exact opposite.

The more you go on the more I think you just suffer from the same fear of commitment that many modern men suffer from. But dressed up in this red pill facade.

It’d be more intellectually honest to just say you want to play the field and that marriage doesn’t appeal to you.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Selfish in the Objectivist sense of the term.Right, it has nothing to do with watching guys I know stuck in sexless marriages and needing to ask permission from the shrewish boss (who let her appearance go for years) to go to poker night once a month with their buddies. I would rather play Russian roulette with a M1911A1.Watch what they do, not what they say. To hear Xantippe talk, the modern woman wants a skinny metrosexual who gets affirmative consent before holding a woman’s hand, when in reality they just bought millions of copies of a book about a billionaire who does the exact opposite.

Does it make you wonder about the whole redpill thing when you have to set up these obviously false dilemmas to defend it?

 

[Xantippe]

I can’t help but wonder if a number of these guys who are complaining about how awful women are, are having this issue because they themselves bring nothing to the table but money and sex.

Right.

 

[Xantippe]

SRight, it has nothing to do with watching guys I know stuck in sexless marriages and needing to ask permission from the shrewish boss (who let her appearance go for years) to go to poker night once a month with their buddies. I would rather play Russian roulette with a M1911A1.Watch what they do, not what they say. To hear Xantippe talk, the modern woman wants a skinny metrosexual who gets affirmative consent before holding a woman’s hand, when in reality they just bought millions of copies of a book about a billionaire who does the exact opposite.

Decent married fathers (like decent married mothers) have a lot of responsibilities at home. A typical middle class family with children will have little kids (who can be very tiring to deal with at home at bedtime) and/or big kids (who often have complicated evening schedules of their own). In neither case are parents free to flit about in the evening socializing with their friends. It’s just normal to check in with your spouse and make sure that you can go out and that there’s not some sort of scheduling conflict. Also, there’s the issue of whether or not the couple has been investing enough in their relationship. If your guy friend goes out once a month with his poker friends and his wife goes out with her friends every month, but they haven’t gone out together as a couple in years (which does happen to parents)–that is a problem. There needs to be some sort of proportionality between family fun, parent friend fun, and couple fun, not to mention some sort of equity between the parents in the amount of free time that they each get.

Books are books (rather than real life), and different women like different things. Also, I think it would be fair to say that Christian Grey is pretty metrosexual (at least in the photos I’ve seen from the movie), and that that’s a big part of his appeal.

I would say that affirmative consent can be a pretty big deal for women who have any sort of sexual assault history (which is a large minority of women). If one doesn’t feel really safe and really loved, the vulnerability of sexuality can be a problem.