The Pope, Marriage, and Male Chauvinism
#11
(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.

LOL. One should consider oneself fortunate if one has this sort of problem. Nothing that I could say to anyone would be more offensive than the things a woman can hear at the streets, in the college, and so on.
Reply
#12
(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.

If she wants out, she gets the house, the kids, the car, and half of everything he makes; he gets ZERO.

I like Jeff Foxworthy's take on divorce, and to paraphrase: "Next time I'm just gonna go out and find a woman I don't like and buy her a house."
Reply
#13
(05-12-2015, 10:24 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(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?

Well, I think we have to account for the legal and economic aspects of the situation here, which to a certain extent predate feminism. Of course marriage is going to fall apart when women depend more upon their bosses or the government than they do on their husbands. One can also look to the decline of the principle of coverture in common law jurisdictions. I assume similar legal developments were happening elsewhere in the West, but I'm unfamiliar with the exact history. Feminism obviously exacerbated these developments, but I don't think it really caused them. 

Ultimately, though, I think the root cause of the decline of marriage is the same as that which lies behind the general crisis in Western culture: nihilism. When we forget the deeper significance of marriage and procreation and no longer see these things as sacred, it is no wonder that eventually things like feminism will pop up and take advantage of a deficient understanding of marriage. This isn't to absolve feminism of any responsibility, of course. I would only say that we need to remember that modern marriage is part of a larger problem and so cannot be treated as a self-contained issue. Otherwise, you end up with things like the men's rights movement: men who want only to apply liberalism more consistently or to live a sterile and hedonistic lifestyle rather than to get back to a decent relationship between the sexes.     
Reply
#14
(05-11-2015, 03:53 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(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/cnsn...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.

Yup.

A year and a half ago I married my wife, with my eyes wide open that marriage laws give her the power to destroy me financially and deprive me of my children. 

While I am willing to take the risk, there is NO material benefit for men getting married.  None.

Have a child out of wedlock?  Man pays child support and ambiguous custody.
Have a child while married?  Expected to support family and custody together as long as she feels like it.  If one day she decides to be single, boom, gone.
Get divorced by your wife?  Ambiguous custody, lose half your stuff, and pay child support.

The first thing the Church should do is sever the Sacrament of Marriage from Civil Marriage.  The State can have their idiotic view of Marriage, the Church can have the True view.

-Male Headship is a marital obligation, not an option.
-Unconditional sacrifice of the husband to the wife and children is a marital obligation, not an option.(At least I still hear this one)
-Sex is a marital obligation, not an option
-Openness to children is a marital obligation, not an option

Ever time I bring up what was common sense before the sexual revolution, I am accused of facilitating sexual abuse.  I will say in their defense, some people in the traditional sphere have an idiotic view of male headship, and I wouldn't trust them to lead a conga line, let alone a marriage.
Reply
#15
I wonder if the highly romanticized view of women is particularly common among priests, at least when expressed by Mediterranean/ Latin people as discussed above. I suspect it might be an attractive view for a celibate heterosexual man to take. It expressed a tenderness towards women that a Latin-rite Catholic priest doesn't experience through marriage, and hopefully does experience through prayer to the Virgin Mary.

I'm just perplexed by the conflict mentality I see so often on these issues. My wife and I are very similar in our attitudes towards these issues, and so perhaps I am being naive, but I just don't experience nor really see around me male nor female chauvinism.
Reply
#16
I think this comment over at AlphaGame is something worthy of being contributed in this thread.  It's from a fellow named Cadders.  The blog post itself is titled: A Belated Discovery.  It explores how feminism is bad for women.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/0...0397648357

Quote:Feminism is already a dead man (woman?) walking.

All feminism has is shaming language and the state (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn't work. And men are dis-engaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don't get married, you can't be divorced, if you don't co-habit you can't have half your stuff appropriated, if you don't have children, you can't be on the hook for child support, if you don't enter the corporate world you can't be be accused of 'harassment' and if you don't date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

These are genuine threat-points for men in the modern world that didn't exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that's over now.

So men are doing what they have always done, survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men's eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining 'benefits' modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, firstly born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as 'empowering'.

And yet, women's self reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, they are also now lower than men's.

But you do not need to read 'The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness' to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one - not in a group - to get the REAL story.The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don't give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell ANY decent man, went.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don't want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about 'winning' battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of 'rape', 'assault', and 'aggression' are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims - even now - men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That's how deeply men do not want to fight women.

The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades.

Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.

And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all - indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.

The time has gone to reap the harvest of feminism, and for women the fruit will be bitterest of all.
Reply
#17
(05-13-2015, 01:40 PM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I wonder if the highly romanticized view of women is particularly common among priests, at least when expressed by Mediterranean/ Latin people as discussed above. I suspect it might be an attractive view for a celibate heterosexual man to take. It expressed a tenderness towards women that a Latin-rite Catholic priest doesn't experience through marriage, and hopefully does experience through prayer to the Virgin Mary.

I'm just perplexed by the conflict mentality I see so often on these issues. My wife and I are very similar in our attitudes towards these issues, and so perhaps I am being naive, but I just don't experience nor really see around me male nor female chauvinism.

I have several times heard complaints from male Catholics about  priests being too close with, and too influenced by, female parishioners, to the detriment of the men around those women. The priest in these cases hears the woman's side of the story and takes it as gospel truth.

I could take this opportunity to argue against mandatory celibacy for parish priests, but I won't.  :P
Reply
#18
(05-13-2015, 02:03 PM)Dirigible Wrote: I have several times heard complaints from male Catholics about  priests being too close with, and too influenced by, female parishioners, to the detriment of the men around those women. The priest in these cases hears the woman's side of the story and takes it as gospel truth.

I could take this opportunity to argue against mandatory celibacy for parish priests, but I won't.  :P

I was wondering about that, actually. I wonder what the real strengths and weaknesses of a celibate versus a married priesthood are.

I think the romanticized view of women, from Latin rite priests, has a few sources. First, they liken women to the Virgin Mary. Second, they view themselves as "fathers" to a parish, and fathers tend to be wrapped around their daughters' little fingers. If the priest is heterosexual, he most likely has positive feelings towards women. If he struggles with same sex attraction, he might be more comfortable around women than around men.  What's more, I suspect that feminism and chivalry both only touch the priest's personal life lightly, and so he is likely to believe what seems aesthetically pleasing and right, rather than working from actual experience as a husband or father.
Reply
#19
(05-13-2015, 01:40 PM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: I wonder if the highly romanticized view of women is particularly common among priests, at least when expressed by Mediterranean/ Latin people as discussed above. I suspect it might be an attractive view for a celibate heterosexual man to take. It expressed a tenderness towards women that a Latin-rite Catholic priest doesn't experience through marriage, and hopefully does experience through prayer to the Virgin Mary.

I'm just perplexed by the conflict mentality I see so often on these issues. My wife and I are very similar in our attitudes towards these issues, and so perhaps I am being naive, but I just don't experience nor really see around me male nor female chauvinism.

Its hard to imagine any priest would be so obtuse as to idealize women after some years of frequently hearing confessions of women.

Also, please, let's not take Bergoglio as the prime example of Latin American Catholic priests--why not take the words of +Schneider who said the Brazilian +Manoel Pestana is his own image of a faithful bishop?.

And no, I don't think celibacy makes a man less of a man. Tell that to Jesus Christ.
Reply
#20
I am not arguing that celibacy makes a man less of a man. I'm only saying that not having a wife might make it easier to idealize women  :LOL:

Ultimately, I think the "romanticized view of women" is not even meant to be literally believed by its strongest adherents. I think it's a nice image some men choose to have, an ideal they choose to pretend they see in real people. Like a lover saying his beloved is "the most beautiful woman in the world."  She probably isn't, objectively, but he's choosing to see her that way.  It becomes problematic when people start to actually think one half of fallen humanity is morally better than the other half.

I wonder how much hearing confessions helps. It wouldn't surprise me if men speak more directly, on average, than women. This could contribute to an image too: priests might be more understanding of how men communicate than how women do. This is all just hypothetical: I'm not deeply committed to this interpretation. I've just noticed that this tendency seems common in priests I know.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)