The real St. Francis of Assisi
(01-31-2012, 02:23 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
traditionalthomas Wrote:First of all, Michael Voris is talking about the masculine attitude and way of problem solving. When he's talking about the 'feminization' of the Church, he's talking about the loss of masculinity in the life of the Church, which has been replaced with a more feminine approach. Each gender has it's own behaviours, roles and attributes, obviously with males being masculine in nature and females being feminine in nature. The problem is when one of these dominate the other, or when the distinction between the two is removed. This is what has happened in Western Society by the feminists for the past 50 years - with the feminine taking over the roles of the masculine, and the minimization of gender roles.  The virtues of masculinity - being bold, blunt and tough, have been overtaken by more feminine approaches. Excommunicating publicly scandalous heretics and dissidents - a very masculine approach. Opening dialogue to solve the problem, a more feminine one.

I understand what you are saying – YOU and Vetus and others express yourselves well enough. But I don’t think Voris does, and if you watch him consistently you see a pattern of not just blaming feminists for our problems, but undermining feminine qualities and behaviors. I’m not saying there isn’t a difference between male and female behavior, for goodness sake, and I’m not saying that we don’t need more balance. I’m saying there’s something wrong with always portraying the feminine qualities as weak, OR, worse, attributing downright bad qualities to being “feminine.”

Greetings,

I can see how you came to see it that way, but I think your interpretation is wrong. If you were to ask Michael, he would probably say that he has no ill will towards the feminine, but rather the dis-proportionate amount of it. Think of it like a cup of coffee. Too many teaspoons of coffee have been shovelled into the mug, in contrast to the amount of water. He says 'The drink is disgustingly bitter'. He is not attacking coffee, he is attacking the over-use of coffee. Better yet, think of it as a milkshake. We like milk, and we like the fact that it is cool, and tastes neutral. We also like the other ingredient, the chocolate, because of its rich flavour and sweetness. If we were to pour only milk into the milkshake glass, and drink it, we would criticize, "Yuck, this milkshake is not sweet enough, and it is too bland". We are not attacking the milk, or the milks qualities, we are attacking the absence of the chocolate, because when the milk and chocolate go together, we have perfect unity in a tasty milkshake. Absence of either one would be a disaster.

I apologise for the silly examples, but I'm finding it difficult to explain.

Blessings,

TraditionalistThomas.

Reply
(02-01-2012, 12:22 AM)Iolanthe Wrote: Furthermore, the true mark of feminism is thinking that women should imitate men because masculinity is superior. That would make you one, Jayne.

I do not freak out when somebody calls me a feminist.  I really did used to be one, but I have repented of my errors.  I don't think you are a feminist, Iolanthe, but you sound way angrier than makes sense.  Something is pushing your buttons.  I hope you can work through whatever it is and come to peace with it. 
Reply
(01-31-2012, 09:57 PM)Iolanthe Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 07:20 PM)Guardian Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 03:01 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: There is nothing wrong with my tone. I'm annoyed because I get tired of watching people like Voris making the Church look like something it's not. If you're too sensitive to see a woman doing that without your head spinning out of control, you are the problem. Not me.

You're overreacting.  Cool off already.  I told you I agreed with part of what you wrote.  All I'm saying is DON'T be outraged if people read your post and throw the feminist flag due to the fact that your sarcastic tone of voice makes it sound a lot like "woman are just as good if not better than men."

Tiresome and predictable. You are obviously one of those paranoid men who are so insecure that they see feminism everywhere. You imagined, completely, that I was using a sarcastic tone (I wasn't) and then you pretended that sarcasm = feminism. It doesn't. You're having an emotional reaction. Nothing that you're saying is making any sense.

Quote:
Quote:PS. You're working awfully hard to ignore my original points about St. Francis and how trads overemphasize the masculine at the expense of everything else. Care to address those points? If you nitpick one tiny thing in a discussion, you run the risk of looking intellectually dishonest and undeserving of being taken seriously.

No I'm not....I actually agree with most of what you said in your original post.  I think you're absolutely right when you explain St. Francis's temperament, and you're spot on when you mentioned trads who are armchair theologians.  I actually laughed out loud when I read it. 

I only chimed in because you were outraged that Ineffible1 disagreed with you on the crucifixion (NOT St. Francis) and I thought I'd add my two cents in.  Incidentally, did you read the part where I said I agreed with both of you and explained why?

Here's some free advice.  I don't know you, and you don't know me, so don't assume that I'm "just like everyone else".  Incidentally, that also is not a free pass to you saying whatever you want.  In a debate people disagree with eachother.  Get over it.  Sarcasm and hostility automatically lead to people not listening or taking you seriously. 

But you are acting like you know me. You had a predictable, knee-jerk reaction and started flinging around accusations of feminism. Whether you agreed with my original point or not, you should not have done that, and you should not be trying to blame "my tone" for your reaction. The appropriate thing for you to do now is to acknowledge you read my writing too quickly, had an irrational reaction to it, and make sure not to do it again.

You accused me of being a feminist. That is a really big, really insulting thing to say to a Catholic woman who is also a total stranger to you. It is a cause for offense. That's why I'm offended. Don't do it again, and don't play victim here. That's all.

All I'm going to say is I will pray for you.  God Bless. 

Incidentally, thank you Jayne.  I appreciate it. 
Reply
(02-01-2012, 01:31 AM)Iolanthe Wrote: Furthermore, the true mark of feminism is thinking that women should imitate men because masculinity is superior. That would make you one, Jayne.

Reading the back and forth between Iolanthe and others, the thought occurred to me that the dispute is precisely what contemporary "feminism" seeks to accomplish.  It was Iolanthe's comment above that put me on the idea:  what is "true feminism" today?  We trads approach that question logically, and attempt to systematize the framework into a working definition.  In our logic, we forget that the contemporary feminists are a crowd of deconstructionists whose main interest is subverting the traditional order of things, from political society, to the Church, to the relationships between men and women in their private lives.  The mask feminism wears is simply suited to the aspect of society the "feminist" (though "radical" would be a better word) seeks to subvert.  That is why we cannot agree what is feminist and what is not.  We are not meant to.  We are meant to argue, and thereby reveal the vacuity of our traditional framework. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but Iolanthe's original point was nothing more than women have as much a role in the Church's life as men, and men who don't accept that fact are mistaken.  For laypeople, this is certainly true.  And 90 percent of the Church is laypeople.  I read her comment in the context of laypeople like ourselves; the differing roles of a nun and a pope in the Church are well known to all of us.  This is probably one of the few forums where the particpants actually agree about that. 

Why, then, did that comment spark such interest?  Because traditionalists, especially Catholic ones, have been under constant assault from deconstructionist radicals for the past half century.  We are as sensitive to the attack as airport security officers are to jokes about bombs.    Feminism today, like political homosexuality or racism, has been honed to an edge that slices any traditionalist who picks it up.  The only approach is to attack it as an idea, to reveal the evils that have been perpetrated in its name, to deny its substance.  Stat rosa nomine, nomina rosa tenemus. 



Reply
Strict Catholic Girl, you have shown yourself a modernist in this thread. Eucharitic Adoration becomes girly when the entire Church becomes girly. Which by all indicators, it has.

The Virgin Martyrs and Women Martyrs are among my favorites. But they were part of a very masculine early Church. And holy due to their virginity, fasting, pennance, and prayer.

Fasting and other forms of pennance are quite masculine in my view. And let us not lose sight of the cowards during that era. They do not appear on the Liturgical Calendar. But, for every martyr, male or female, scores sacrificed to the pagan gods.

Some people think that the TLM would be gone forever if not for the SSPX. That is not true, IMHO.

You sound like those women who think the Church would no longer exist if it weren't for the women.

Lay off Michael already. Without a spiritual father in the house, the children will never be formed correctly. That is the truth and it is undeniable.

I left CCD in the 5th Grade because it was utter nonsense. I had no desire to be Confirmed in the factory model of mid '70s Catholicism. Which still seems to exist until this day.

I felt unworthy to receive such a Seal with so poor a formation. So I dared not do it. It would have amounted to blasphemy in my view. That was the masculine approach, Strict Catholic Girl.

I bet you used to snicker at the boys if they did not do everything according to the book when you were in grade school. Am I getting warmer? And you always raised your hand in class and were always the teacher's pet.

Well the days of the Feminized Church are over. So I hope you enjoyed it. Oh you may make it through to the end in what you appear to like, but the tide is turning.
Reply
(02-01-2012, 02:15 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Strict Catholic Girl, you have shown yourself a modernist in this thread. Eucharitic Adoration becomes girly when the entire Church becomes girly. Which by all indicators, it has.

Why are you making this into a personal attack on SCG?  One of the masculine characteristics is to focus on principles and ideas rather than on people.  You can help make the Church more masculine by doing this.
Reply
(02-01-2012, 02:15 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: I bet you used to snicker at the boys if they did not do everything according to the book when you were in grade school. Am I getting warmer? And you always raised your hand in class and were always the teacher's pet.

Actually I was expelled once, and dropped out of school in 9th grade. I was always in love with the class clown and hung out with the boys.. ..

And I was hardly teacher's pet.

Edited to add: And I will not "lay off" Michael. He's not a "spiritual father." To me he's not even masculine. He's much too sarcastic and demeaning, like the playground bully. Real men don't need to play that.
Reply
My dear Jayne, a masculine approach would recognize my last post as informative and insightful. And certainly not an attack.

And I will not say that I am sorry, because she needs to cool down and usually charity, parceled out in the masculine manner, appears to the feminists as an attack.

And I do agree with much of what you say here. However, it is impossible to get there from here.

Sometimes what is needed first, is to tell the person to sit down and shut up. Then after reflecting for awhile, they can listen to reason.

But, I told no one to shut up and I did even give what I thought was the proper dose of reason with the appropriate medicine of admonishment.

And finally, I must say that I learned this behavior of looking at a person's handle due to your psychological profiling. So, when I see the word "strict" in her handle, along with modernist views, I am more apt to call a spade a spade when I think the time is right.
Reply
(02-01-2012, 02:42 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: And finally, I must say that I learned this behavior of looking at a person's handle due to your psychological profiling. So, when I see the word "strict" in her handle, along with modernist views, I am more apt to call a spade a spade when I think the time is right. 

"Strict Catholic Girl" is the title of a poem I once wrote. As for being "strict" I am where it counts. Doctrine. Not some of the silly stuff that gets passed for "doctrine" around here. Now get off my back, Adam.
Reply
(02-01-2012, 02:42 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: My dear Jayne, a masculine approach would recognize my last post as informative and insightful. And certainly not an attack.

There is nothing informative, insightful or masculine about speculating about a person's childhood as a way to put her down.  This thread is full of posts in which people disagreed with SCG's ideas without making nasty personal comments. You were out of line.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)