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

[DarkLight]

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

Right, because that’s totally/ what both Xantippe and I were saying.

Look, someone who’s regularly pushed into a position where they’re having sex they’re not really interested in - especially if no effort is made to get them interested - is just not going to be that into it. For that matter, they’re likely to start feeling upset and resentful towards their partner, and to feel that sex is a chore they must complete rather than a union of two spouses. There’s also the biological fact that it’s likely to be much less comfortable for the woman.

That’s got nothing to do with feminism - that’s just human nature being the same way it’s been since the dawn of time. I suspect the only reason it’s really associated with women is that it isn’t strictly necessary for any arousal to occur on the part of the woman for the act to be completed, while the same cannot be said for a man. But unless the woman is an exceptionally good actress, you’re unlikely to get a passionate romance from a woman who feels that she’s being pushed.

From a Catholic perspective, I would also argue that the idea of pushing sex merely because one wants sex, knowing the partner is disinterested, should make one very careful that the unitive aspect is actually occurring.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t know who TJ Kirk or Sam Harris is (although the latter name is vaguely familiar), nor do I care.

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.

 

[Xantippe]

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?

Yeah.

 

[Xantippe]

Right, because that’s totally/ what both Xantippe and I were saying.

Look, someone who’s regularly pushed into a position where they’re having sex they’re not really interested in - especially if no effort is made to get them interested - is just not going to be that into it. For that matter, they’re likely to start feeling upset and resentful towards their partner, and to feel that sex is a chore they must complete rather than a union of two spouses. There’s also the biological fact that it’s likely to be much less comfortable for the woman.

**That’s got nothing to do with feminism - that’s just human nature being the same way it’s been since the dawn of time. ** I suspect the only reason it’s really associated with women is that it isn’t strictly necessary for any arousal to occur on the part of the woman for the act to be completed, while the same cannot be said for a man. But unless the woman is an exceptionally good actress, you’re unlikely to get a passionate romance from a woman who feels that she’s being pushed.

From a Catholic perspective, I would also argue that the idea of pushing sex merely because one wants sex, knowing the partner is disinterested, should make one very careful that the unitive aspect is actually occurring.

Right.

This is yet another unworkable Red Pill expectation–that one can command female desire and get red hot enthusiasm 100% of the time.

Heck, I can’t even do that.

This is a bit TMI, but I say yes to my husband 90-95% of the time, and with a great deal of enthusiasm. BUT I get to say no, and the fact that I get to say no 5-10% of the time helps me be much more enthusiastic the other 90-95% of the time. Being able to say no means that I am fully able to say yes.

Given my past experience with a previous rape-y boyfriend, the whole sex-on-demand thing would be a complete disaster for me. People with the experience of sexual abuse or violence need space to be able to feel safe and not like they are re-experiencing previous bad experiences (an effect which having sex against one’s will would be very likely to produce).

In case anybody missed the link, here’s a post from a survivor of molestation as a teen talking about the adjustments that she and her husband have had to make:

natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.com/2017/02/intimacy-after-abuse-my-childhood-abuse.html

 

[DarkLight]

I don’t know who TJ Kirk or Sam Harris is (although the latter name is vaguely familiar), nor do I care.

I know who he is, and if people on this forum regularly talked about how great his ideas were I probably would go after him. As it is, there’s not much point in talking about the views of someone no on agrees with.

 

[DarkLight]

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).

I’m honestly not really sure what kind of behaviors you’re imagining. We’re not talking about “oh he tried to hold my hand when I wasn’t ready but he backed off when I pulled away.” We’re talking more “I told him I wasn’t ready for kissing on the lips and he kept trying again every 3-5 minutes.” It can also apply to non-sexual actions - for example, I can tell you the coworker who kept bugging me to go out with him labelled himself a problem to stay away from rather than actually increasing his chances (not that he really had one, but that was for other reasons). And a very common one I’ve heard from friends is people who repeatedly want to discuss exes or other hurtful people who used to be in the person’s life, even after indications that they are not comfortable with the topic.

I’ve actually called the police on a guy exactly once, and that was because he was touching himself inappropriately in public. I’ve firmly told a few men to get lost when they seemed to be particularly obtuse and weren’t taking gentler ways of indicating that I did not want to continue the interaction. Most of the time it’s going to be as simple as simply fading interaction with the person to the necessary minimum.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Nuclear family is mother, father, daughter son etc, living together.

I’m not sure then, why certain public figures are brought up in defense of nuclear families, but were/ are not examples of what a nuclear family is.

Like an author who lived an open marriage while she was addicted to barbiturates and her husband was an alcoholic.

Or an internet troll who brags about how much gay sex he has with black men.

Or another fellow who has multiple children with various women.

I guess no leading by example?

How about examples like Gianna Mola and her husband? She was a pediatrician and mom. The letters they wrote each other are very good examples of marital love.

 

[Xantippe]

I**'m honestly not really sure what kind of behaviors you’re imagining. We’re not talking about “oh he tried to hold my hand when I wasn’t ready but he backed off when I pulled away.” ** We’re talking more “I told him I wasn’t ready for kissing on the lips and he kept trying again every 3-5 minutes.” It can also apply to non-sexual actions - for example, I can tell you the coworker who kept bugging me to go out with him labelled himself a problem to stay away from rather than actually increasing his chances (not that he really had one, but that was for other reasons). And a very common one I’ve heard from friends is people who repeatedly want to discuss exes or other hurtful people who used to be in the person’s life, even after indications that they are not comfortable with the topic.

I’ve actually called the police on a guy exactly once, and that was because he was touching himself inappropriately in public. I’ve firmly told a few men to get lost when they seemed to be particularly obtuse and weren’t taking gentler ways of indicating that I did not want to continue the interaction. Most of the time it’s going to be as simple as simply fading interaction with the person to the necessary minimum.

Yeah, when we talk about boundary violations, don’t mean “oh he tried to hold my hand when I wasn’t ready but he backed off when I pulled away,” and we mean a repeated or sustained behavior.

The sustained and repeated testing of boundaries is what makes me say RUN! because a person who is unable to understand (or claims to be unable to understand) “no” with minor acts of physical affection has demonstrated that they do not understand consent. They’ve also just demonstrated that they are much more likely than a random person off the street to commit sexual assault.

 

[Xantippe]

Nuclear family is mother, father, daughter son etc, living together.

**I’m not sure then, why certain public figures are brought up in defense of nuclear families, but were/ are not examples of what a nuclear family is.

Like an author who lived an open marriage while she was addicted to barbiturates and her husband was an alcoholic.

Or an internet troll who brags about how much gay sex he has with black men.

Or another fellow who has multiple children with various women.

I guess no leading by example?**

How about examples like Gianna Mola and her husband? She was a pediatrician and mom. The letters they wrote each other are very good examples of marital love.

Right.

And the crazy thing is, there are plenty of liberal, secular, non-Christian people whose private lives are irreproachable (faithful and affectionate spouses, loving parents)–and yet we’re supposed to look to a rogues’ gallery of bad actors…

I’m not going to look for inspiration on successful family life to people whose private lives are one long trainwreck.

 

[DarkLight]

Right.

And the crazy thing is, there are plenty of liberal, secular, non-Christian people whose private lives are irreproachable (faithful and affectionate spouses, loving parents)–and yet we’re supposed to look to a rogues’ gallery of bad actors…

I’m not going to look for inspiration on successful family life to people whose private lives are one long trainwreck.

I should clarify that this isn’t just an ad hominem. It’s an evaluation of these people’s qualifications. Someone who, for example, has multiple children with different women and is proud of how he sleeps around casts serious doubt on his ability to provide advice that’s applicable to a successful Catholic marriage.

And as has been mentioned before, women (and men) aren’t a monolith. It’s more than just whether your approach is successful at getting a woman, but whether your approach is successful at getting the kind of woman who’s invested in a relationship. Techniques that might be quite successful, for example, at getting women who are interested in a short-term fling with lots of sex, are going to absolutely turn off women who are looking for a long-term monogamous relationship.

 

[Xantippe]

I should clarify that this isn’t just an ad hominem. It’s an evaluation of these people’s qualifications. Someone who, for example, has multiple children with different women and is proud of how he sleeps around casts serious doubt on his ability to provide advice that’s applicable to a successful Catholic marriage.

And as has been mentioned before, women (and men) aren’t a monolith. It’s more than just whether your approach is successful at getting a woman, but whether your approach is successful at getting the kind of woman who’s invested in a relationship. Techniques that might be quite successful, for example, at getting women who are interested in a short-term fling with lots of sex, are going to absolutely turn off women who are looking for a long-term monogamous relationship.

Yes.

All Women Are Like That is a Red Pill mantra, but their methods don’t work on all women, which is why pickup theory assumes that only a tiny minority of women are going to respond to their approaches.

 

[faithsmind]

I’m honestly not really sure what kind of behaviors you’re imagining. We’re not talking about “oh he tried to hold my hand when I wasn’t ready but he backed off when I pulled away.” We’re talking more “I told him I wasn’t ready for kissing on the lips and he kept trying again every 3-5 minutes.” It can also apply to non-sexual actions - for example, I can tell you the coworker who kept bugging me to go out with him labelled himself a problem to stay away from rather than actually increasing his chances (not that he really had one, but that was for other reasons). And a very common one I’ve heard from friends is people who repeatedly want to discuss exes or other hurtful people who used to be in the person’s life, even after indications that they are not comfortable with the topic.

I’ve actually called the police on a guy exactly once, and that was because he was touching himself inappropriately in public. I’ve firmly told a few men to get lost when they seemed to be particularly obtuse and weren’t taking gentler ways of indicating that I did not want to continue the interaction. Most of the time it’s going to be as simple as simply fading interaction with the person to the necessary minimum.

Yes, the abnormal, manipulative behavior–when he refuses to take you home until… or just fails to stop trying his moves over and over when you were very clear. Or showing up at your place of work on a business trip when you specifically told him not to. It’s common sense. When I was much younger, most of the time, I would be flattered and thought it was a cutesy game. Now, I’m clear with what I want, and if he consistently fails to respect or discuss my views kindly and rationally, then I interpret it as possibly dangerous. But now I choose not to date since no annulment.

I think there are some helpful things to be drawn from feminism, but the overall movements tend to be misogynistic and anti-family. I do feel like Protestants tend to be more disrespectful of a woman’s role because they are without Marian honor. I think of Mary pregnant on the donkey with Joseph leading. Who exactly is the servant? Both have a higher, dignified calling besides their own good. Catholicism has always been light-years beyond any sexual ideology because the woman’s body is never seen as a tool for man’s use. It is seen as a sacred gift to be offered to God and man.

And I’m confused when I see many of these feminist, liberated women who are all agog with 50 shades of Gray because the woman has consented. It’s confusing and demeaning to everyone.

As far as Rand, I had no idea he was Republican. I was only familiar with the self-glorification in Fountainhead. But I thought it was hysterical that a Catholic was using Nietzsche quotes in his arguments on family and relationships.

 

[ThePCWife]

Ayn Rand was a woman and not really Republican in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

[Xantippe]

I have a lot of issues with the Red Pill/PUA/MGTOW/MRA/manosphere, especially the “Christian” Red Pill. Here are some areas where I think there are some very serious conflicts with Christianity as well as with reality:

–It’s very problematic attempting to baptize these ideas, because PUA stuff (which has a large overlap with the Red Pill) is all about seduction, and the faster the better. (For anybody who is about to tell me that these are distinct movements–there is a common language and many common assumptions and guys float between the various communities.) Here’s an example of a PUA guide to what they call kino (seduction via escalating touch):

simplepickup.com/forum/become-boss/1893-guide-kino-touching-girl.html

I would stop before getting to the comments, if I were you, but if you push on, you’ll notice that this is not really an environment that a Nice Catholic Boy ought to be hanging out in.
–While some of the initial advice about non-intimate touch isn’t completely terrible, you can see how hard this is to adapt for use with a chaste courtship. It’s not a great idea to use up ALL of the non-sinful modes of physical affection within a couple hours of meeting your intended…
–Also, Nice Catholic Girls (especially the more street smart ones or ones who have good advice) are unlikely to tolerate this touchy-touchy stuff from strange men. It will make you look like a creep.
–Believe it or not, actual practicing Catholic young men go to these creeps for dating advice.
–A peculiarity of the Red Pill is that the guys (at least publicly) insist on a virgin bride, while at the same time high-fiving each other on how many women they manage to bed. You’ll see a lot of the following:

1. Bed lots of women
2. ???
3. Virgin bride!

It is a very reasonable question, what is the middle step that allows you to get from #1 to #3? (This description is not a strawman–this is pickup artist’s Roosh V’s actual life plan.)
–Lastly, a peculiarity of the “Christian” Red Pill is that it has so very little to offer nice Christian women who want a husband, even though Christian Red Pill people think that marrying young ought to be the end all, be all for women. Their advice to nice young Christian women boils down to a) be hot b) dress sexy (but at the same time modest!) c) don’t have sex before marriage! d) don’t focus on higher education and career f) marry young!
–You’ll notice the total absence of any actually helpful advice to women with regard to how to go about being chaste while dating or how to go about marrying young–marrying young is an aspiration, not actionable advice without there being a suitable guy on deck.
–Notice also the conflict between the PUA advice earlier (which is all about accelerating physical intimacy) and the Red Pill Christian advice (which is for young women to not have sex).
–Essentially, men and women get totally different and incompatible advice in this world. --Likewise, young men are told not to get married and young women are told to get married right away–if everybody did this, a large number of the young women would be unable to follow the advice.

 

[starshiptrooper]

As far as Rand, I had no idea he was Republican. I was only familiar with the self-glorification in Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand was a woman and was most definitely not a Republican. That was a reference to the left who claim that today’s Republicans are influenced by Ayn Rand’s philosophy when almost none of them have read it and nearly all of them lack consistency in their principles.

As for The Fountainhead, you apparently missed the messages about how there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical and the importance of integrity.

But I thought it was hysterical that a Catholic was using Nietzsche quotes in his arguments on family and relationships.

It was used in the context of avoiding a state contract that is inherently unjust.

It was an affirmation of the value of autonomy and personal responsibility. Surely the “women are people too and have needs” crowd here should be able to sympathize with that.

 

[Xantippe]

Ayn Rand was a woman and was most definitely not a Republican. That was a reference to the left who claim that today’s Republicans are influenced by Ayn Rand’s philosophy when almost none of them have read it and nearly all of them lack consistency in their principles.

As for The Fountainhead, you apparently missed the messages about how there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical and the importance of integrity.

It was used in the context of avoiding a state contract that is inherently unjust.

It was an affirmation of the value of autonomy and personal responsibility. Surely the “women are people too and have needs” crowd here should be able to sympathize with that.

I notice that none of your heroes are actual parents.



If you want to follow a particular way of life, perhaps it would make sense to find somebody who is actually living that life?

 

[starshiptrooper]

I notice that none of your heroes are actual parents.

Your point is?

 

[Xantippe]

Your point is?

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have your marriage and parenting gurus be non-parents.

I suppose it might make sense if they had a professional life working with children, but as far as I know, neither Ayn Rand nor Nietzsche nor Roosh V had a secret career as a preschool teacher or child psychologist.

Really, would you take workout advice from somebody who hadn’t actually put their ideas into visible practice?

It makes a lot more sense to locate happy families and ask how they do it.

 

[DarkLight]

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have your marriage and parenting gurus be non-parents.

I suppose it might make sense if they had a professional life working with children, but as far as I know, neither Ayn Rand nor Nietzsche nor Roosh V had a secret career as a preschool teacher or child psychologist.

Really, would you take workout advice from somebody who hadn’t actually put their ideas into visible practice?

It makes a lot more sense to locate happy families and ask how they do it.

Neither of them had good track records of chastity and marital commitment either.