FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism (/showthread.php?tid=72192)

Pages: 1 2


The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - divinesilence80 - 05-10-2015

Ok, I've been holding my tongue about the Pope, but now he's done it!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/pope-decline-marriage-form-male-chauvinism

He thinks feminism isn't to blame for the decline of marriage?!?!?!? That right there tells me he doesn't know his Bible from Mother Goose rhymes! Now he is just on a "make the media happy tour." Let's pray that Our Lord shows the Pope how the feminist ego destroyed what he thinks he is going to fix before he sells out the rest of Catholicism to be the PC Pope.


Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - xandratax - 05-11-2015

I think there is a lot more to blame for the decline in marriage than just feminism. I mean, what does he even mean by 'feminism'? That's why I can't stand about the whole thing, arguments are undefined and filled with hot-air, formulated simply as meaningless positive stimuli to the masses. Just like the 'Who am I to judge?' nonsense. All it does is confuse people, which is the exact opposite of what the Pope is supposed to do.

Maybe young people aren't getting married because they aren't even taught what this is and why it is should be valued? Maybe that has more to do with the bumblings of the Vatican not properly preaching the faith? Oh no! Of course it's all our fault. And what the heck does Adam and Eve have to do with this? He did mention something right: it has to do with faith. People are afraid if getting married and responsibility because they lack faith. DUH! Too bad that sentence is just thrown into the rest of the whole feel-good Gumbo.

You know, this whole feminism thing could ended once and for all with a good old-fashioned philosophical debate of the gender-studies folks against the theologians. Instead we just have a bunch of mud-slinging, and constant blaming. Yes, that's  how far we've devolved, from actually thinking and debating to flat-out blaming. Even the Vatican has now stooped to this. Now it's the fault of the 'male chauvinists.' Next week, on some other issue, it will be someone else. In the mean time, the Church continues to look even more stupid in the eyes of non-Christians and feminists have a good laugh about such articles over their morning coffee. This is seriously embarrassing, not just for Catholics, but for humanity.  :(


Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - VoxClamantis - 05-11-2015

(05-10-2015, 06:26 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Ok, I've been holding my tongue about the Pope, but now he's done it!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/pope-decline-marriage-form-male-chauvinism

He thinks feminism isn't to blame for the decline of marriage?!?!?!? That right there tells me he doesn't know his Bible from Mother Goose rhymes! Now he is just on a "make the media happy tour." Let's pray that Our Lord shows the Pope how the feminist ego destroyed what he thinks he is going to fix before he sells out the rest of Catholicism to be the PC Pope.

The money quote:
Pope Francis Wrote:"The difficulties are not only economic, although these are truly serious. Many believe that the changes that have occurred in these last decades were put in motion by the emancipation of women. But even this argument is invalid, it’s false, it isn’t true! It is a form of male chauvinism, which always seeks to dominate women. We give the bad impression that Adam gave, when God asked him: “Why did you eat the fruit of the tree?”, and he said: “The woman gave it to me”. It’s the woman’s fault. The poor woman! We must defend women! In fact, nearly all men and women would want stable emotional security, a solid marriage and a happy family. The family tops all the indices of wellbeing among young people; but, fearing mistakes, many do not want to even consider it; even being Christians, they do not consider the sacrament of matrimony, the single and unrepeatable sign of the covenant, which becomes a testimony of faith. Perhaps this very fear of failure is the greatest obstacle to receiving the Word of Christ, which promises his grace to the conjugal union and to the family."

He is so way, WAY out of touch with what's going on in the world if he thinks that marriage laws that give women more power than men, that men into walking wallets and deprive them of even their dignity, have nothing to do with why men aren't bothering to marry any longer. Marriage on the secular level is a tragedy for men, plain and simple. For a man to marry means his handing his testicles over to a woman and hoping she doesn't crush them.

If she wants out, she gets the house, the kids, the car, and half of everything he makes; he gets ZERO. And besides, women are giving away for free one of the great benefits to marriage (i.e., sex). And what real-life women don't provide, porn and "real dolls" do.

All incentives to marry other than two have been totally destroyed for men. The two incentives -- children and someone to love and grow old with -- are things that men can't rely on having since the way divorce works, she gets the kids and he gets the bills, and divorce is the end result of about 50% of marriages nowadays.

Plain and simple, if we want for men to marry, we need to eradicate no-fault divorce; re-think custody and restore men's rights as fathers; treat marriage much more respectfully (stop with the gay "marriage" nonsense, etc.); get women to realize their power as gatekeepers and stop giving it away for free (without falling into the Victorian nonsense ideas that women aren't as sexual as men, and without prudery, etc.); get rid of porn or at least make it socially shameful; and not expect men to pay for or have any rights over children born outside of wedlock.




Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - Dirigible - 05-11-2015

(05-11-2015, 03:53 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: He is so way, WAY out of touch with what's going on in the world if he thinks that marriage laws that give women more power than men, that men into walking wallets and deprive them of even their dignity, have nothing to do with why men aren't bothering to marry any longer. Marriage on the secular level is a tragedy for men, plain and simple. For a man to marry means his handing his testicles over to a woman and hoping she doesn't crush them.

If she wants out, she gets the house, the kids, the car, and half of everything he makes; he gets ZERO. And besides, women are giving away for free one of the great benefits to marriage (i.e., sex). And what real-life women don't provide, porn and "real dolls" do.

All incentives to marry other than two have been totally destroyed for men. The two incentives -- children and someone to love and grow old with -- are things that men can't rely on having since the way divorce works, she gets the kids and he gets the bills, and divorce is the end result of about 50% of marriages nowadays.

Plain and simple, if we want for men to marry, we need to eradicate no-fault divorce; re-think custody and restore men's rights as fathers; treat marriage much more respectfully (stop with the gay "marriage" nonsense, etc.); get women to realize their power as gatekeepers and stop giving it away for free (without falling into the Victorian nonsense ideas that women aren't as sexual as men, and without prudery, etc.); get rid of porn or at least make it socially shameful; and not expect men to pay for or have any rights over children born outside of wedlock.

It seems he's bought into that bizarre, false notion of women as the "romantic" sex, that holds that marriage is purely a sacrifice for men, but something that comes naturally to, and is eminently desirable to, all women. This view demeans and insults men and makes women out to be angels who can do no wrong. I don't know where this view comes from or how anyone can hold it, as it's so obviously out of touch with the reality we all see, full of male romantic dreamers and treacherous and selfish women, but it seems common among shallow conservatives.


Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - VoxClamantis - 05-12-2015

(05-11-2015, 11:32 PM)Dirigible Wrote: It seems he's bought into that bizarre, false notion of women as the "romantic" sex, that holds that marriage is purely a sacrifice for men, but something that comes naturally to, and is eminently desirable to, all women. This view demeans and insults men and makes women out to be angels who can do no wrong. I don't know where this view comes from or how anyone can hold it, as it's so obviously out of touch with the reality we all see, full of male romantic dreamers and treacherous and selfish women, but it seems common among shallow conservatives.

I'd like to know where it comes from, too. It sorta makes me sick. I have some idea as to the origins of that sort of thinking in the WASP world, where "Victorianism" was its peak, but for an Italian-South-American-Catholic to have that sort of attitude -- it's something I haven't analyzed.  Off the top of my head, I can imagine that an overly "frothy" view of Our Lady might have something to do with it. I think something happened to the human element of the Church when that overly-sentimentalized "L'art St. Sulpice" aesthetic started permeating huge chunks of the Catholic world. Jansenism in France and Ireland also likely played a role.

Think of the almost sickeningly sweet tone that some trads "put on" when speaking of Our Lady, women, the feminine, etc.:  where do you think that comes from?  We've always had poetry, and there's always been reverence, of course, but I don't have the sense that the medieval era -- "ironically," the age of chivalry! -- was marked by that ooey-gooey, sugary approach to anything feminine -- by which I don't mean recognizing "the feminine," understanding and respecting women's weakness in terms of physical strength relative to men's, or embracing the natural "sugariness" of romance and falling in love, etc. What I mean are the ideas that women are morally superior to men, that they possess more virtue, that they are sexless, that they're practically angels whose feet don't touch the ground when they walk, that they don't need just physical protection (which we do, most of us), but protection of the sort that we give to children -- a "protection" coupled with condescension (ex., the idea that women's "virgin ears" must be protected from coarse language lest they -- well, I dunno what's supposed to happen if A Lady hears a "dirty word." Perhaps they melt into the floor in puffs of smoke like the Wicked Witch of the West. Who knows?)

But to hear this sort of thing come from a Pope -- and to hear it especially NOW, when men are being punked on to such an extreme degree and while we're living in a veritable matriarchy -- it's a triple whammy. He's not making sense. He's either out of touch to a shocking extent or he knows better but is singing to the feminists' tune for some reason. Either way isn't good.



Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - Renatus Frater - 05-12-2015

(05-12-2015, 03:54 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I'd like to know where it comes from, too. It sorta makes me sick. I have some idea as to the origins of that sort of thinking in the WASP world, where "Victorianism" was its peak, but for an Italian-South-American-Catholic to have that sort of attitude -- it's something I haven't analyzed.  Off the top of my head, I can imagine that an overly "frothy" view of Our Lady might have something to do with it. I think something happened to the human element of the Church when that overly-sentimentalized "L'art St. Sulpice" aesthetic started permeating huge chunks of the Catholic world. Jansenism in France and Ireland also likely played a role.

Think of the almost sickeningly sweet tone that some trads "put on" when speaking of Our Lady, women, the feminine, etc.:  where do you think that comes from?  We've always had poetry, and there's always been reverence, of course, but I don't have the sense that the medieval era -- "ironically," the age of chivalry! -- was marked by that ooey-gooey, sugary approach to anything feminine -- by which I don't mean recognizing "the feminine," understanding and respecting women's weakness in terms of physical strength relative to men's, or embracing the natural "sugariness" of romance and falling in love, etc. What I mean are the ideas that women are morally superior to men, that they possess more virtue, that they are sexless, that they're practically angels whose feet don't touch the ground when they walk, that they don't need just physical protection (which we do, most of us), but protection of the sort that we give to children -- a "protection" coupled with condescension (ex., the idea that women's "virgin ears" must be protected from coarse language lest they -- well, I dunno what's supposed to happen if A Lady hears a "dirty word." Perhaps they melt into the floor in puffs of smoke like the Wicked Witch of the West. Who knows?)

But to hear this sort of thing come from a Pope -- and to hear it especially NOW, when men are being punked on to such an extreme degree and while we're living in a veritable matriarchy -- it's a triple whammy. He's not making sense. He's either out of touch to a shocking extent or he knows better but is singing to the feminists' tune for some reason. Either way isn't good.

If I had the job of analyzing it I would start poking around Dante and his crowd. And of course, its not like the Middle Ages were a period of perfect sanity; and those Chivalric romances are already subversive, something that would go against the Church (especially in the late Middle Ages).

The funny thing is that the pope just says “no, this is dumb!” and gives no explanation where this fear of failure in marriage comes from. Here's an wild idea: how about not giving quite literally 100% of annulments to couples who ask for them? How about actually supporting traditional Church teaching?
No, that would be too chauvinistic, I guess. The poor women! I mean, they all have the right (given by emancipation) of being like Julia Roberts or any of those disgusting actresses.

This kinda makes me angry because I'm one of those with fears about matrimony, and I know exactly where it comes from. Talk about a pope distant from ground reality!
Also, I suspect in the confessional he's one of those who psychoanalyze you. And of course, you have to take it serious, because only the fool is angry at reproaches, but still, in the majority of time its just completely off the mark.



Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - Crusading Philologist - 05-12-2015

I think the Pope is right to say that our problems with marriage go deeper than feminism (though I suspect he and I would not agree on these deeper issues), but it seems like the Pope wants to have it both ways in regard to our treatment of women. On the one hand, the sexual revolution was, overall, a good thing and women should have the same rights as men. Yet, on the other hand, men must still be chivalrous, deferential, and willing to sacrifice in their relations with women. I don't think one can have both of these things at once. After all, how can one be chivalrous toward one with whom one is competing in the marketplace? And being deferential toward one with more power than you isn't chivalry, it's being a doormat.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila Wrote:The ineptitude and folly of the bishops’ and popes’ chatter would disturb us, if we old Christians had not fortunately learned as little children to sleep during the sermon. 



Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - Renatus Frater - 05-12-2015

(05-12-2015, 09:37 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I think the Pope is right to say that our problems with marriage go deeper than feminism (though I suspect he and I would not agree on these deeper issues), but it seems like the Pope wants to have it both ways in regard to our treatment of women. On the one hand, the sexual revolution was, overall, a good thing and women should have the same rights as men. Yet, on the other hand, men must still be chivalrous, deferential, and willing to sacrifice in their relations with women. I don't think one can have both of these things at once. After all, how can one be chivalrous toward one with whom one is competing in the marketplace? And being deferential toward one with more power than you isn't chivalry, it's being a doormat.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila Wrote:The ineptitude and folly of the bishops’ and popes’ chatter would disturb us, if we old Christians had not fortunately learned as little children to sleep during the sermon. 


What are the root problems?


Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - Dirigible - 05-12-2015

(05-12-2015, 03:54 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Think of the almost sickeningly sweet tone that some trads "put on" when speaking of Our Lady, women, the feminine, etc.:  where do you think that comes from?

I don't know, but my guess would be that it lies in some manner of insecurity on the part of the men, probably having more to do with their own role as men, rather than fears about female behaviour. It's a question begging to be studied, though the study would be made difficult by how much feminist claptrap there is about.

(05-12-2015, 03:54 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: We've always had poetry, and there's always been reverence, of course, but I don't have the sense that the medieval era -- "ironically," the age of chivalry! -- was marked by that ooey-gooey, sugary approach to anything feminine -- by which I don't mean recognizing "the feminine," understanding and respecting women's weakness in terms of physical strength relative to men's, or embracing the natural "sugariness" of romance and falling in love, etc. What I mean are the ideas that women are morally superior to men, that they possess more virtue, that they are sexless, that they're practically angels whose feet don't touch the ground when they walk, that they don't need just physical protection (which we do, most of us), but protection of the sort that we give to children -- a "protection" coupled with condescension (ex., the idea that women's "virgin ears" must be protected from coarse language lest they -- well, I dunno what's supposed to happen if A Lady hears a "dirty word." Perhaps they melt into the floor in puffs of smoke like the Wicked Witch of the West. Who knows?)

I have plenty of chivalric ideas myself, but if a woman is so fragile that I can't swear in front of her, I'll not put up with her!  :LOL: It does a man no good to have a wife who's just another dependent, he needs a woman tough and competent enough to be trusted with his children and his household.


Re: The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism - PrairieMom - 05-12-2015

(05-12-2015, 10:40 AM)Dirigible Wrote: I have plenty of chivalric ideas myself, but if a woman is so fragile that I can't swear in front of her, I'll not put up with her!  :LOL: It does a man no good to have a wife who's just another dependent, he needs a woman tough and competent enough to be trusted with his children and his household.

Amen!