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

[AdamP88]

I will explain my opinion with an analogy. How familiar are you with free market concepts: particularly the boom and bust cycle, inflation, and sound monetary policy?

Familiar enough…please go on…

 

[starshiptrooper]

Familiar enough…please go on…

When governments deliberately inflate their currency or otherwise increase the money supply, this distorts the market’s equilibrium causing a boom. This boom can cause massive shifts in people’s habits, (think of the Roaring 20’s). If the government continues inflating their currency, this will cause hyperinflation similar to what happened in Germany after WWI. Governments will ease off on the inflation which in turn ends the boom. People who did not anticipate the end of the boom will lose their shirts. This can affect the entire market (think of the Great Depression) as it painfully corrects itself to values that more accurately reflect reality.

2nd wave feminism and the sexual revolution caused a severe distortion in how men and women relate to each other. Feminists, like the good little cultural Marxists they are, think that the world is inevitably becoming more and more progressive and are not fully appreciating the trends listed below which are a natural reaction to the implementation of their ideology.

1. Fewer men are invested in society. More women than men are going to college. We hear laments about how so many men lack ambition and are content with video games, weed, and porn. This is going to reduce the number of men that women consider marriageable. It will also reduce the number of men in the taxbase and other key sectors of society.
2. That leads into my second point. Awareness of how unfair civil marriages and other laws regarding gender relations will discourage more men from getting married or even pursuing a sexual relationship. If feminism intensifies, the outright misandry and fat acceptance for women will also reduce both the number of men interested in women and the number of interesting women.
3. The rise of the Red Pill. If you look past all the complaining about women, there is a certain strategy being advocated. Namely, how to obtain maximum rewards from the female with minimal investment.
4. The introduction of sexbots, virtual reality sex, and the artificial uterus. This will enable more men to obtain their own goals without having to deal with women on their terms. Similar to how feminists have effectively utilized the state and social conditioning to outsource to all men, the protector/provider role that husbands usually fulfilled.
5. Reliable male birth control that is more effective than the condom but less permanent than a vasectomy (you can reverse it, but it is not always successful). Women have always had to worry about the natural consequences of sex until the Pill. Men have to worry about the modern state enforcing the legal consequences of a women getting pregnant. Reliable male birth control will eliminate this worry for men.

Together, these factors will cause a massive shift in the way men evaluate sex and relationships and affect their choices. Some men will drop out entirely. Others are going to work on positioning themselves to take advantage of these trends. Eventually people will realize that real relationships are more fulfilling and adjust their behavior accordingly. Incidentally from the economic side investing in: wine, vibrators, trashy romance novels, and anything related to pets will pay big dividends.

I realize that this is only my opinion for now as none of these trends have been fully realized. So please do not waste your time explaining how none of this will happen. We can wait a few decades to see if I was right or not.

 

[DarkLight]

Here’s our fundamental issue.

Let’s set aside all the societal trend stuff for now.

Let’s talk about this whole “how to obtain maximal rewards for minimal effort.”

That is, simply put, not a Catholic way of looking at other people. And it is most certainly not a way of looking at marriage. You simply can’t love, honor, and cherish someone when you’re taking that attitude towards them.

Women are people. As Catholics, we have certain ways we are obligated to treat other people, and seeing them simply as someone to get what we can from doesn’t qualify. The way the Bible teaches us is to love and care for one another, and to sacrifice for each other.

 

[Xantippe]

Unfortunately, the last couple of threads I can think of all got deleted by the mods. I know there was one pretty recently that ended up deleted that had the “sex-on-demand” thing in it. And a lot of black-and-white thinking between a “loveless marriage” and “sex on demand”.

Right.

I think a lot of Red Pill guys are afraid of a “loveless marriage” or a “dead bedroom” and they think that if they can just introduce a rule that their wife is never allowed to say “no,” that this will somehow ensure a passionate and loving marriage.

 

[ThePCWife]

When governments deliberately inflate their currency or otherwise increase the money supply, this distorts the market’s equilibrium causing a boom. This boom can cause massive shifts in people’s habits, (think of the Roaring 20’s). If the government continues inflating their currency, this will cause hyperinflation similar to what happened in Germany after WWI. Governments will ease off on the inflation which in turn ends the boom. People who did not anticipate the end of the boom will lose their shirts. This can affect the entire market (think of the Great Depression) as it painfully corrects itself to values that more accurately reflect reality.

2nd wave feminism and the sexual revolution caused a severe distortion in how men and women relate to each other. Feminists, like the good little cultural Marxists they are, think that the world is inevitably becoming more and more progressive and are not fully appreciating the trends listed below which are a natural reaction to the implementation of their ideology.

1. Fewer men are invested in society. More women than men are going to college. We hear laments about how so many men lack ambition and are content with video games, weed, and porn. This is going to reduce the number of men that women consider marriageable. It will also reduce the number of men in the taxbase and other key sectors of society.
2. That leads into my second point. Awareness of how unfair civil marriages and other laws regarding gender relations will discourage more men from getting married or even pursuing a sexual relationship. If feminism intensifies, the outright misandry and fat acceptance for women will also reduce both the number of men interested in women and the number of interesting women.
3. The rise of the Red Pill. If you look past all the complaining about women, there is a certain strategy being advocated. Namely, how to obtain maximum rewards from the female with minimal investment.
4. The introduction of sexbots, virtual reality sex, and the artificial uterus. This will enable more men to obtain their own goals without having to deal with women on their terms. Similar to how feminists have effectively utilized the state and social conditioning to outsource to all men, the protector/provider role that husbands usually fulfilled.
5. Reliable male birth control that is more effective than the condom but less permanent than a vasectomy (you can reverse it, but it is not always successful). Women have always had to worry about the natural consequences of sex until the Pill. Men have to worry about the modern state enforcing the legal consequences of a women getting pregnant. Reliable male birth control will eliminate this worry for men.

Together, these factors will cause a massive shift in the way men evaluate sex and relationships and affect their choices. Some men will drop out entirely. Others are going to work on positioning themselves to take advantage of these trends. Eventually people will realize that real relationships are more fulfilling and adjust their behavior accordingly. Incidentally from the economic side investing in: wine, vibrators, trashy romance novels, and anything related to pets will pay big dividends.

I realize that this is only my opinion for now as none of these trends have been fully realized. So please do not waste your time explaining how none of this will happen. We can wait a few decades to see if I was right or not.

The 50% divorce rate never happened, but you keep making claims that divorce risk is a huge problem for men. The very feminism you complain about has made custody for fathers more common, along with child support for men. Marriage for the middle and upper-middle is moving to a partnership model where both earn about the same amount and have more flexible jobs compatible with raising several (but not too many) children.

As for male birth control, it will have the same outcomes as female birth control. Fewer children overall, but the same rough amount of children to the men and women who still want a family. Birth control can only suppress a part of the natural desire to have sex be genitive.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Right.

I think a lot of Red Pill guys are afraid of a “loveless marriage” or a “dead bedroom” and they think that if they can just introduce a rule that their wife is never allowed to say “no,” that this will somehow ensure a passionate and loving marriage.

They also hate “starfish sex”, and rightly so. But, on the rare occasion female orgasms are discussed, it’s too deride and mock them. Marriage should be passionate, but you do have to be a lover worth being passionate for.

 

[Xantippe]

Which ones do you mean? Some of my could-have-beens I may have said something about in the past or the two or three lady friends whose positive behaviours I’ve only just cited appreciatively as an example of how one can be considerate in dating contexts? It’d be difficult for me to comment without knowing this.

I had in mind the women you mentioned earlier who wanted to stop doing physical things that they used to do with you pretty randomly–and you saw it as them being capricious, controlling, and annoying.

I have to sympathize at least a little both with you and your lady friends, because at my house it’s common for the other residents to like a hug sometimes but not other times, shiver at a pat or caress, jump when touched unexpectedly or be too busy or preoccupied for a kiss, etc.

So I ask a lot and try not to be offended when family members don’t want to be touched.

In our family’s case, this is probably primarily an autistic feature.

healthland.time.com/2012/03/19/understanding-why-autistic-people-may-reject-social-touch/

 

[starshiptrooper]

Here’s our fundamental issue.

Let’s set aside all the societal trend stuff for now.

Let’s talk about this whole “how to obtain maximal rewards for minimal effort.”

That is, simply put, not a Catholic way of looking at other people. And it is most certainly not a way of looking at marriage. You simply can’t love, honor, and cherish someone when you’re taking that attitude towards them.

As I already pointed out, it is a response to the distortions introduced by the vampiric aspects of feminism.

Women are people. As Catholics, we have certain ways we are obligated to treat other people, and seeing them simply as someone to get what we can from doesn’t qualify. The way the Bible teaches us is to love and care for one another, and to sacrifice for each other.

Hold the phone, women are people??!!! :bigyikes: You don’t say!!! I thought all this time that they were inanimate articles of furniture to be purchased on Amazon Prime. Thank you for clearing up that up for me.

Right.

I think a lot of Red Pill guys are afraid of a “loveless marriage” or a “dead bedroom” and they think that if they can just introduce a rule that their wife is never allowed to say “no,” that this will somehow ensure a passionate and loving marriage.

Go ahead say, “no” all you want. I will make my needs a priority too and say “no” as well.

 

[Xantippe]

They also hate “starfish sex”, and rightly so. But, on the rare occasion female orgasms are discussed, it’s too deride and mock them. Marriage should be passionate, but you do have to be a lover worth being passionate for.

Yeah.

It’s very noticeable that in the Red Pill, they don’t want women ever to be able to say no, but they also want hot, passionate sex.

In practice, hot, passionate sex at the flick of a switch isn’t really a thing, especially for 40-somethings.

Also, BEL is correct in noticing that for all the Red Pill obsession with sex, it’s very guy-centered–you rarely hear anything in those quarters about making sure that it’s nice for the woman, too (I guess that would be “beta”). As far as I can tell, the Red Pill belief is that women just automatically climax with an “alpha.”

 

[Xantippe]

What I mean is, in some circles, it’s considered that wives are never allowed to say no, under any circumstances.

Strictly speaking that’s true, though we’d need to take an analytical approach. There is a right to refuse ‘unlawful’ demands (and that, interestingly to some of those folks no doubt, would be any demand aimed solely at the demander’s own sexual gratification, for which I could find a precise quote from Aquinas) simply because such an invalid demand cannot create an obligation.

Next, people can’t be expected to take a serious risk of incurring a disease or otherwise endanger their health or submit to a humiliating demand.

However, a married person does indeed not retain the sort of sovereignty that a sexually active single person enjoys in popular culture.

Hence, a wife asking her husband or a husband asking his wife for sex is emphatically not the same kind of request considered at absolute liberty as asking someone out on a date (or a girlfriend asking a boyfriend for a kiss or vice versa).

‘Do not withhold yourselves from each other unless you agree to do so just for a set time, in order to devote yourselves to prayer. Then you should come together again so that Satan does not tempt you through your lack of self-control.’ (1 Corinthians 7:5.)

This refers to anything from old anti-sex heresies to modern ‘I only have a duty when I absolutely feel like it’ notions.

Hence there is indeed no straight-out acceptance vs refusal consideration as if of a non-binding proposal completely within the freedom of the negotiating parties. In this sense there can be said to be no right to just simply refuse (marriage removes such discretionality).

 

[Xantippe]

It’s interesting you associate this idea with Protestants. When I hear this, I don’t think of religion at all. I think of the worst trailer park, barely getting by with government assistance, Mountain Dew in the kids’ sippy cups, mom’s temperamental boyfriend drinking away every paycheck, Midwestern or Appalachian stereotype.

For someone who so clearly craves respect to aspire to this is just weird. It’s the old cutting off your nose to spite your face thing.

You’re right that mainstream childbearing outside of legal marriage has a really trashy reputation (and you and I both know that Red Pill guys complain about that, too), but there is actually a small (very small) Protestant subculture of religious marriage outside civil marriage.

But, again, these are very poor people with weird theology who live hand-to-mouth lives. Middle class parenting of 3+ kids is virtually impossible without marriage.

 

[DarkLight]

As regards ‘man-hater’, well, I suppose some women unload their entire frustration with the male sex on whatever man they are currently chastizing for his behaviour, just like mothers and teachers do in obviously non-dating contexts. Men aren’t actually bad at emotional intelligence, and they can pick up clues women think they aren’t showing. Hence a man, even the average bloke that isn’t particularly dense, can indeed spot some kind of general disappointment in men that a woman has too thinly disguised and thinks it doesn’t show.

Naturally, there are still going to be men who will do anything to vilify a woman for rejecting them (labels, shaming, false accusations of loose morals etc.).

Although I will say I’m not sure all men can tell the difference between “general disappointment in men” and “disappointment in the kind I’m currently dealing with.”

There was a particular (sadly unavoidable) bus stop that was the center of a good portion of the issues with boors I had. I got along fine with my male classmates and men at church, but I admit the next 18 year old boy approaching me at the bus stop was probably going to get a bit of a skeptical reception. Probably combined with the fact that at that point an 18 or 19 year old boy wasn’t going to be of interest anyway, but I can’t really blame them on that one.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I will explain my opinion with an analogy. How familiar are you with free market concepts: particularly the boom and bust cycle, inflation, and sound monetary policy?

Oh, but see, Ayn Rand was an atheist!

Therefore, her arguments are all invalid!

Really, I shouldn’t be surprised at all her name has come up on Catholic Answers Forums in a negative light yet AGAIN.

Notice how they never go after a pro-big government atheist or someone more on the left like TJ Kirk or Sam Harris.

I’ve tried to give some leeway on here to them, but at the end of the day this is the Family Life Forum and quite honestly I think we both know the game of virtue-signaling and strawmen that this is about to devolve into.

Fact is I can’t take anyone seriously as promoting Catholic values in good faith if they can’t even discuss on an anonymous forum the biggest threats to the nuclear family. Maybe you and I disagree on MGTOWs and MRA’s, but to suggest that they have the same power as the decades of post-modernism and now 3rd wave feminists have gathered in academia or the media or more influence than Saudi and Persian bankrolled radical Islam is absurd and tells me that this is all about attacking the low-hanging fruit on the right because it is easy, safe and cool.

Catholics are not called to take the safe, easy cool way out.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m not sure we really need a lot of strawmanning with some of what posters are actually saying on here…

 

[starshiptrooper]

Oh, but see, Ayn Rand was an atheist!

Therefore, her arguments are all invalid!

Really, I shouldn’t be surprised at all her name has come up on Catholic Answers Forums in a negative light yet AGAIN.

You know full well that a relatively unread philosopher who is most known for being the inspiration for a video game and the alleged influence behind the crony capitalist policies of the Republicans, is the fountainhead of all evil. :tsktsk:

Notice how they never go after a pro-big government atheist or someone more on the left like TJ Kirk or Sam Harris.

Correct as usual, we just had Xantippe explaining how Andrea Dworkin was not all that bad.

I’ve tried to give some leeway on here to them, but at the end of the day this is the Family Life Forum and quite honestly I think we both know the game of virtue-signaling and strawmen that this is about to devolve into.

You mean it has not already?

Fact is I can’t take anyone seriously as promoting Catholic values in good faith if they can’t even discuss on an anonymous forum the biggest threats to the nuclear family. Maybe you and I disagree on MGTOWs and MRA’s, but to suggest that they have the same power as the decades of post-modernism and now 3rd wave feminists have gathered in academia or the media or more influence than Saudi and Persian bankrolled radical Islam is absurd and tells me that this is all about attacking the low-hanging fruit on the right because it is easy, safe and cool.

Catholics are not called to take the safe, easy cool way out.

One of these days as I drift evermore authoritarian right, you and I should have a conversation about politics, philosophy, and history. I would be interested in seeing how you maintain your libertarian right stance with the rise of the SJW’s.

 

[Xantippe]

Just like everybody else, you don’t have to spend time with people whose company you don’t enjoy. Rather, the problem is that according to your list about 90% of the people a woman dated would trigger her. Hence she would be unrealistically and without a need or purpose harm her own chances of establishing a happy relationship. Hence the advice at least borders on harmful. One other thing is also rash judgement and unfounded accusations, which goes against the 8th commandment and can in serious cases be grave matter (not that a confused person would necessarily accomplish the knowledge and will, but repeatedly electing to judge people superficially perhaps could).

The paranoia is in (and throughout) the list of alleged red flags, not the ‘feeling unsafe compared to 99% other people’ you’ve brought up right now. The one is not consistent with the other.

Last time I checked the advice was to exit quietly, which is what I had an issue with. Hence I cannot simultaneously be accusing you of proposing a loud, dramatic flourish.

My contention is that judging potentially good people on the basis of wild hypotheses derived from exaggerated clues in their potentially innocent behaviours and then leaving them clueless (without feedback) as to what they allegedly did wrong, that’s hugely toxic behaviour as far as relationships go.

(Unlike when dealing with a real toxic person, where deescalating the relationship, even so it hopefully dies a ‘natural’ death, would indeed be preferable to pointless confrontation.)

And that’s great, but you can’t just tell people to be so distrustful of those they interact with as to stop barely short of calling the cops because something was odd in the person’s voice.

I wasn’t talking about tone of voice. When DarkLight and I are talking about boundary pushing, we’re talking about much rougher stuff. And as she pointed out, she feels safe with the vast majority of men she deals with regularly. We’re not talking about freaking out with 90% of men.

If one is truly concerned that a particular person is unsafe, of course one isn’t going to give them a big lesson on boundaries before scooting off. That would be unwise, especially as the form that boundary violation often takes is not listening to no. It might make sense to give that lesson (which you would undoubtedly resent deeply) to a person I regard as awkward but basically safe and reasonable, but I don’t think it’s obligatory, especially as it will often be unsafe or unwise (either to safety or chastity). Also, my experiences on CAF trying to explain this stuff do not give me a lot of hope that any particular iffy individual is going to straighten up and fly right after being given a talk. You yourself are (judging by your self-description) pretty gentlemanly, and yet you are also (by your own description) incorrigible about continuing to do things that don’t work well for you.

Nobody in this thread has been talking about almost calling the police–even about the more hands-on kind of boundary violations. That just appeared out of nowhere.

A lot of people (especially young people) need to be more cautious. The young are (unavoidably) much more naive, have fewer street smarts, and have less experiencing in telling who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. They almost always need more caution rather than less caution. (Particular individuals may need to be less cautious.)

 

[DarkLight]

As I already pointed out, it is a response to the distortions introduced by the vampiric aspects of feminism.

Disagreements on feminism aside, two wrongs don’t make a right. Responding to the complaint that feminism uses people by deciding to use people for your own ends doesn’t work morally.

Go ahead say, “no” all you want. I will make my needs a priority too and say “no” as well.

I think the point here is that, even if she says “yes”, you’re not likely to get a lot of passion out of someone who isn’t genuinely interested.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Oh, but see, Ayn Rand was an atheist!

Therefore, her arguments are all invalid!

Really, I shouldn’t be surprised at all her name has come up on Catholic Answers Forums in a negative light yet AGAIN.

Notice how they never go after a pro-big government atheist or someone more on the left like TJ Kirk or Sam Harris.

I’ve tried to give some leeway on here to them, but at the end of the day this is the Family Life Forum and quite honestly I think we both know the game of virtue-signaling and strawmen that this is about to devolve into.

Fact is I can’t take anyone seriously as promoting Catholic values in good faith if they can’t even discuss on an anonymous forum the biggest threats to the nuclear family. Maybe you and I disagree on MGTOWs and MRA’s, but to suggest that they have the same power as the decades of post-modernism and now 3rd wave feminists have gathered in academia or the media or more influence than Saudi and Persian bankrolled radical Islam is absurd and tells me that this is all about attacking the low-hanging fruit on the right because it is easy, safe and cool.

Catholics are not called to take the safe, easy cool way out.

This post is insane. In the context of this thread, even moreso. It’s not about Rand’s atheism, it’s about how her philosophy is fundamentally incompatable with a functional family. He’s been asked several times how he plans to reconcile that with marriage and children, particularly a Catholic marriage. So far, we have yet to get an answer.

Do you have any ideas of how it could be done? Without going off topic about destroying the family, identifying greater enemies, logical fallacies, Islamic extremism, and all of your other favorite buzzword distractions?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Disagreements on feminism aside, two wrongs don’t make a right. Responding to the complaint that feminism uses people by deciding to use people for your own ends doesn’t work morally.

I think the point here is that, even if she says “yes”, you’re not likely to get a lot of passion out of someone who isn’t genuinely interested.

I will make sure to roll my eyes and act disinterested whenever I say “yes” too then. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[Xantippe]

Chaperone is another favourite concept.

Somebody should start a version of Uber for chaperones.