Bp W column, 7.4.09
#41
(07-05-2009, 02:33 PM)columba Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 08:32 AM)didishroom Wrote: Why is it unnatural? Being paid makes it wrong? Why is being plaid masculine?

What H.E. actually said was "we are de-naturing our womenfolk by admiring and encouraging them to gladiate" and then "Can then the countrymen of Wimbledon... be surprised if their native birth-rates are collapsing? Have they any right to complain if their countries look like being taken over by immigrants in a not too distant future?"

What is there to deny or debate here among Catholics? Promoting the masculine de-naturing of European women is part of the Euro-genocide that is resulting in a gradual re-peopling of those countries by Muslims.

I just find the choice of focus funny and strange. I don't think that it's a "de-naturing" if an unmarried female athlete's cycles become irregular or temporarily cease during the season of her life when she is playing. When she gets ready to retire (still relatively early in life for most athletes), she'll presumably stop the high-level training that causes this to happen, and when she returns to normal activity levels, she'll become fertile again and be able to marry and raise a family. Indeed she'll be uniquely well equipped, physically at least, because of her excellent health.

Also, to choose to focus on women's professional sports as though they were a major, irredeemable cause of the problems in Western culture is simply laughable. So women should compete in high-necked shirts and capris? Fine, then they should; I support that. But the discussion of how to retain modesty in an activity is different from the discussion of whether to do the activity itself.

Finally, just the tiny percentage of women for whom this issue is a concern in the first place... *shrug* Sure, it's a problem if vast percentages of women in a society are delaying marriage and childbearing until it's nearly too late, as indeed they now are in the West. Let's address that problem. But for a talented few to do so (as long as they also delay sexual activity) I simply don't see a problem.
Reply
#42
Quote:Do you really want  know what's stupid?   What's stupid is your cockamamey trashing of everything Bishop Williamson has to say.   But the really stupid thing is how you post on a catholic websitbe but  you don't have the moral fiber to actually honestly deal with what the bishop is talking about.  In your first post, you create a strawman of stating that the bishop is berating women for leaving the kitchen.He did no such thing.  In other words, you have to lie about the Bishop's position in order to commence your character assasination.
I do not trash everything he has to say....He says many good things but they are nothing exemplary, so I don't bother to comment on them. I do in fact have many criticisms of his opinions and I am certainly entitled to expressing those opinions on this board. Deal with it. I did not create a strawman argument with that comment because it wasn't an argument, it was a comment.  



Quote:Now, since you can't honestly deal with my valid points, you have to try and create a strawman in which you fail to delineate between "playing sports" and the abuse of one's nature for the sake of "playing sports."
What valid points? You brought up one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen and then replied to the criticisms of it with a smiley icon and a joke. The burden of proof is on you.
   

Quote:You fail to see an abuse of sports and recreation that the bishop does see and anyone who can free their minds from the drumbeat of the perverse counterculture can see.
He's not simply reporting an abuse of sports such as the immodest attire of women compared to the modest attire of men. That's understandable and I did not challenge that point. I was challenging his theory that women in professional sports is intrinsically wrong and responsible for the low birth rates in Europe.


Quote:Actually I'm convinced you don't fail to see it.  You must like the gender-blending and all the stream of anti-family ideas described as "liberty" and "freedom."   Your disparaging and feminist inspired cliches' about "the kitchen" alone prove you've got a mixed up set of priorities and that you've been totally brainwashed into denying that there is an assault that is both subtle and overt on the nature of male and female as God created the human race.  

You parade yourself as some kind of fair-minded liberal on gender issues when you assault the very nature of femininity by endorsing the assault against  women that demeans the very nature that God gave them.  Male and female are fully complementary and fully dignified in the supernatural and the natural order, but they are not built for the same things and those things they do share are not necessarily to be done with the same intention nor intensity.  That's why male and female make couples and not pairs.

You blame and resent the good bishop for seeing what you willfully remain blind to.

My comment though sarcastic, does reflect my perception of Williamson's views on women. I've never seen him commend women on anything outside of having children. He chides women receiving an education with the same logic you used. "Can you imagine our Lady going to College?"  He insists women only wear skirts because it physically hinders them from doing "unwomanly" activities. I am no feminist, despite your own "assassination" of my character. I do believe the best place of a mother(not necessarily a woman) is the home. In principle I am against working mothers. I do not support them being police officers, firefighters, or soldiers. I think it would be better if they didn't vote. However, I do not buy this ridiculous view that their only worth comes from breeding, no matter how nicely you describe it.


[/quote]
Reply
#43
Quote:Playing a game with your family is fine, but to make a living out of it is unnatural. Sports goes against the nature of women. It is by its nature a male thing. It's not getting paid, but the lifestyle that is a huge problem. The training, strength, conditioning, and competitiveness of professional sports is something that by nature is masculine and in no way part of womanhood. Women who do this are shaping a masculine identity that goes against the nature of their sex.

The erroneous philosophies of feminism, relativism, gender equality have led to this atmosphere of female sports. In the history of the world in the last centuries, there has been no such thing as female professional sports.

You have obviously never met a woman. God did not create an entire sex of wilting flowers....woman are most definitely, the "weaker" of the sexes physically. But "less strong" does not mean "weak" so a woman who is physically strong is not "un-feminine." Women are very competitive creatures, just like men. When it comes to sports, men are "sprinters" and women are "marathoners." Women are great when it comes to endurance. If it was sooo unnatural for women to engage in sports then I doubt they would be very popular. Yes there are always the feminists who are pushing themselves into mens' activities but for the most part women stick to things that come naturally to women. Your opinion, erroneous as it is, that women are not competitive or into sports by nature is just that:your opinion. It is not Catholicism and I am very tired of people trying to pass it off as if it is. 
Reply
#44
(07-05-2009, 02:44 PM)Anastasia Wrote: I disagree that strength, training, and competitiveness are not, by nature, part of women's character. Those women with large families in particular develop very strong muscles and a great deal of physical endurance. Ask around, most trad mothers do strength training or some form of strenous exercise to keep themselves in shape for their children. One mother of nine I know now has the exact muscles of a weight-lifter. Or you might consider pioneer women: no weak, delicate flowers, they!
And for competitiveness, what would be the explanation for cooking contests? Baking contests? Sewing contests? If women are not by nature competitive, why do these things exist? Women are extremely competitive, especially with other women. Observe what happens the next time you see a group of women talking amongst themselves. It can be subtle, but you'll see it.

I'm sure that under those peasant shirts, most women in the Middle Ages had biceps to rival our First Lady.
Reply
#45
(07-05-2009, 12:51 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: [quote='didishroom' pid='405595' dateline='1246797151']
Why is it unnatural? Being paid makes it wrong? Why is being plaid masculine?

because no woman in her right mind would be caught dead wearing plaid.

Playing a game with your family is fine, but to make a living out of it is unnatural.


I disagree - maybe you think that any woman that brings $ into a household is displaying unnatural behavior?


Sports goes against the nature of women. It is by its nature a male thing.


it's not. But women are better equipped ( naturally ) to bear children, take care of a family, nurture, etc. than men are. So, if there was a choice - and many times there isn't - on whether the man was going to hunt a big animal and drag it home or the woman was to do it?

I'd rather stay home and care for my family, and let the man go and provide for us. God's design. However, I think He also made woman capable of handling all sorts of what you consider "male only" activities for a reason.

That includes sports.



It's not getting paid, but the lifestyle that is a huge problem. The training, strength, conditioning, and competitiveness of professional sports is something that by nature is masculine and in no way part of womanhood. Women who do this are shaping a masculine identity that goes against the nature of their sex.


Again, I disagree. I see only one glaring difference between men and women in the area of sports....competitiveness. A woman can compete very, very successfully. And she can have the drive, and the power, and the will to do so.

But I've seen women abandon their competitiveness in the blink of an eye when appropriate to do so - whereas men have a much more difficult time of doing that.


The erroneous philosophies of feminism, relativism, gender equality have led to this atmosphere of female sports. In the history of the world in the last centuries, there has been no such thing as female professional sports.


Have to disagree again, :)

look up the origins of the bikini and you'll see pictures of women playing competitively 2000 years ago.
Reply
#46
(07-05-2009, 02:44 PM)Anastasia Wrote: I disagree that strength, training, and competitiveness are not, by nature, part of women's character. Those women with large families in particular develop very strong muscles and a great deal of physical endurance. Ask around, most trad mothers do strength training or some form of strenous exercise to keep themselves in shape for their children. One mother of nine I know now has the exact muscles of a weight-lifter. Or you might consider pioneer women: no weak, delicate flowers, they!
And for competitiveness, what would be the explanation for cooking contests? Baking contests? Sewing contests? If women are not by nature competitive, why do these things exist? Women are extremely competitive, especially with other women. Observe what happens the next time you see a group of women talking amongst themselves. It can be subtle, but you'll see it.

Yes, women are very competitive and strong but the strengths are women are not exactly the same as the strengths of men. Traditionally, the strengths are women were considered of equal or greater importance to society than the strengths of men. The media elite has harmed society by promoting pursuit of the strengths men by women over pursuit of the strengths women. 
Reply
#47
Spartan women engaged heavily in sports and were thought to be the most beautiful of Greek women.
Reply
#48
(07-05-2009, 03:17 PM)columba Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 02:44 PM)Anastasia Wrote: I disagree that strength, training, and competitiveness are not, by nature, part of women's character. Those women with large families in particular develop very strong muscles and a great deal of physical endurance. Ask around, most trad mothers do strength training or some form of strenous exercise to keep themselves in shape for their children. One mother of nine I know now has the exact muscles of a weight-lifter. Or you might consider pioneer women: no weak, delicate flowers, they!
And for competitiveness, what would be the explanation for cooking contests? Baking contests? Sewing contests? If women are not by nature competitive, why do these things exist? Women are extremely competitive, especially with other women. Observe what happens the next time you see a group of women talking amongst themselves. It can be subtle, but you'll see it.

Yes, women are very competitive and strong but the strengths are women are not exactly the same as the strengths of men. Traditionally, the strengths are women were considered of equal or greater importance to society than the strengths of men. The media elite has harmed society by promoting pursuit of the strengths men by women over pursuit of the strengths women. 

So exactly what are women allowed to do?
Reply
#49
BMX racing.  Duh.   :metal:

edited to add: b/c it's a family sport  ;D
Reply
#50
(07-05-2009, 03:23 PM)Underdog Wrote: BMX racing.  Duh.   :metal:

edited to add: b/c it's a family sport   ;D

I'm going for the duh as well, Alex.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)