The decline of marriage is a good thing
#21
(10-24-2015, 03:03 PM)introvert Wrote:
(10-16-2015, 09:46 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: AH! You've asked the million dollar question here. I think there are 2 congruent answers:

1) Unfortunately, men suffer feminism because there is a grain of truth to the old saying that "men (some, not all) will say / do anything to get in a woman's pants." Feminism was more or less born in the liberal education system where "beta males" end up who are of the stereotypical "nerd variety." Since the "beta males" typically can't woo a woman with their lack of musculature they seduce women with a pumping up of their ego. In essence they take a play from the playbook of "alpha females" who build up the lunk headed "alpha males." It's very easy to manipulate someone when you inflate their ego until they turn on you of course....

2) At the end of the day men cannot and will not "control women" so whether we "allow" feminism or not is irrelevant. If women want to organize and gripe there is little to nothing we can do about it. Lots of men (and women) have attempted to shut down feminism but at the end of the day there is no rewriting the human heart.

Ha! The bolded line-- that is just too rich. I knew I wasn't the only one who thought that! I agree with you wholeheartedly on the first point.

As to the second-- I was under the impression "back in the day," when men were the ones who set the rules, women had to abide by them or suffer consequences. Example-- in the 1950's and 1960's, if a woman divorced her husband and tried to find housing, she was denied because she was the one who did the divorcing. If a woman had sex with a woman outside of marriage and had a baby as a result, she was shamed for out of wedlock motherhood. These were things where men did not put up with shenanigans, but neither did a lot of wise women because they knew better.

You've touched a note there with rewriting the human heart. As I've said before, I see the manosphere and feminism as two sides to the same coin. Even the Christian manosphere sites are highly questionable because they too, embrace "men's rights activist" tenants. However, I think humans can choose to rewrite their own hearts if they are willing to consider they've been wrong and wish to change. Sometimes this has to be forced, and sometimes this is done freely. I have a feeling much of it will be forced through societal changes later on in my lifetime, or after it.

That would be fun.


As to DN's second point, I believe it assumes some things I wouldn't grant. For instance, feminism is not intrinsic to woman (yes, believe it or not we had this discussion before).
Frankly, I believe feminism is an engineered thing--I don't buy for a second the inevitable change of times, the coming of age of man or any such Whigish (either pessimistic or optimistic, depending who you're talking to) attitudes. Some people thought all this, of creating a world of "polymorphous perversity" in which it was necessary to pervert the women, and some crazy foundations financed it all.
Reply
#22
I think one also needs to consider the role of capitalism in all of this. Obviously, feminism has resulted in both the expansion of the labor pool and the construction of women as consumers of products associated with various lifestyles. With this in mind, it is clear that the way in which trads and other conservatives instantly denounce anyone who criticizes capitalism as a "socialist" contradicts their supposed support for the family, an institution that obviously cannot coexist with capitalism on a large scale. Nevertheless, the last few years have shown that, when given the choice, most conservatives will take warmongering and usury over the family any day of the week. 
Reply
#23
Funny you should say that. Just a couple of days ago someone republished an article on a local libertarian magazine about this, with the thesis “without capitalism there would be no feminism”. And they praise the “glorious revolutions” of liberalism that paved the way for the industrial revolution, so on and so forth.
Basically, trying to sell capitalism to feminists and feminist sympathizers.

I agree with your commentary (though I still don't know which trads are pro-capitalists the way you say. Your posts would be less of a riddle if you cited names. The SSPX?). There is simply nothing a Catholic can have in common with libertarians.

I know you hinted at this, but capitalism not only gives the condition for feminism, but also it produces these forms of lives through consumerism. So, even if one could more or less fix things meddling in the economy—to make sure a father of a family is able to sustain his family—would not be enough (really, I perceive poor people can be quite consumerist, which really doesn't make mathematical sense, but yes, the lower classes swallowed the lifestyle they are supposed to have). One would have to learn again a simplicity of needs and of life. And at the end of the day, the typical Catholic family is in privileged position for this: having preferred the eternal goods with children over the temporal comfort they can very well make virtue out of necessity.
Reply
#24
Renatus Frater,  capitalism is the heart of the issue.  This is because it has not only created feminist women as wage earners and consumers (one might say the "uber consumer") but also characterized human beings as commodities - inherently disposable.  Workers are not valued but replaced at a frightening pace.  They are not worthy of reasonable accommodations, health insurance, or pensions because these things undermine the profitability of a company.  In personal relationships, we "consume" each other after a fashion.  If man A (or woman A - remember gender doesn't matter; it's all about sexual gratification) isn't doing it for you, upgrade to a younger, more attractive model.  If you happen to get pregnant and don't want the baby, dispose of it - now called "the product of conception" or a "fetus" not a baby.  Notice the term here: product.  Kids are sent to school and activities so that parents don't need to deal with them for huge portions of the day; TVs fill in the rest of the time.  The entire culture presents human beings as interchangeable and disposable.  From the concept of "all men are created equal" has come the perversion: all men really are equal.  The personality, intellect, abilities, and morals of the individual are utterly irrelevant.  In such a world, marriage is completely useless - unless you wish to acquire the assets of the other party, hence the prenuptial agreement.
Reply
#25
(10-27-2015, 12:09 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: If a woman had sex with a woman outside of marriage and had a baby as a result,

That would be fun.
[/quote]

Ha, don't I feel sheepish. But unfortunately, woman are doing that through use of artificial insemination...eww...
Reply
#26
(10-27-2015, 12:09 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: As to DN's second point, I believe it assumes some things I wouldn't grant. For instance, feminism is not intrinsic to woman (yes, believe it or not we had this discussion before).
Frankly, I believe feminism is an engineered thing--I don't buy for a second the inevitable change of times, the coming of age of man or any such Whigish (either pessimistic or optimistic, depending who you're talking to) attitudes. Some people thought all this, of creating a world of "polymorphous perversity" in which it was necessary to pervert the women, and some crazy foundations financed it all.

May I ask-- could you post the link or something? I don't want you to repeat yourself, but what you've said is a novel concept to me. I always chalked up women defaulting to feminism because of the inherent fallen nature of women, the weaker sex, manosphere said so, etc. In my understanding, feminism is an offshoot of Marxism that excelled well in the US and then spread elsewhere.
Reply
#27
(10-29-2015, 06:37 PM)introvert Wrote:
(10-27-2015, 12:09 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: As to DN's second point, I believe it assumes some things I wouldn't grant. For instance, feminism is not intrinsic to woman (yes, believe it or not we had this discussion before).
Frankly, I believe feminism is an engineered thing--I don't buy for a second the inevitable change of times, the coming of age of man or any such Whigish (either pessimistic or optimistic, depending who you're talking to) attitudes. Some people thought all this, of creating a world of "polymorphous perversity" in which it was necessary to pervert the women, and some crazy foundations financed it all.

May I ask-- could you post the link or something? I don't want you to repeat yourself, but what you've said is a novel concept to me. I always chalked up women defaulting to feminism because of the inherent fallen nature of women, the weaker sex, manosphere said so, etc. In my understanding, feminism is an offshoot of Marxism that excelled well in the US and then spread elsewhere.

A link to what exactly?
Reply
#28
(10-29-2015, 06:43 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(10-29-2015, 06:37 PM)introvert Wrote:
(10-27-2015, 12:09 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: As to DN's second point, I believe it assumes some things I wouldn't grant. For instance, feminism is not intrinsic to woman (yes, believe it or not we had this discussion before).
Frankly, I believe feminism is an engineered thing--I don't buy for a second the inevitable change of times, the coming of age of man or any such Whigish (either pessimistic or optimistic, depending who you're talking to) attitudes. Some people thought all this, of creating a world of "polymorphous perversity" in which it was necessary to pervert the women, and some crazy foundations financed it all.

May I ask-- could you post the link or something? I don't want you to repeat yourself, but what you've said is a novel concept to me. I always chalked up women defaulting to feminism because of the inherent fallen nature of women, the weaker sex, manosphere said so, etc. In my understanding, feminism is an offshoot of Marxism that excelled well in the US and then spread elsewhere.

A link to what exactly?

I had assumed there was already a discussion on the topic mentioned, and was wondering if you remembered the topic.
Reply
#29
(10-30-2015, 03:03 AM)introvert Wrote: I had assumed there was already a discussion on the topic mentioned, and was wondering if you remembered the topic.

If you go through all the threads I've started I am sure you will find what you are looking for  :eyeroll:
Reply
#30
As someone who reads alt right blogs and also operates one not everyone in the alt right is bad. The alt right is just like any political stance, you have people of different ideologies. Alt right is just people who opt out of democracy and the modern narrative being fed to us (liberal or conservative). For example the alt right contains Monarchists, Theonomists, Etho-Nationalists, Trans Huminists, Futurists, Corporatists, pick up artists, traditionalists, tribalists, and others. We are united by the ideology that democracy is a sham. I am a Monarchist, and Traditionilist. All the alt right represents in a blanket term is a return to an older form of society and the older world was full of false teachings too so there is nothing wrong with being alt right, you just have to make sure you align with the Catholic alt right and not the pagan/atheist one. There are perfectly good "manosphere" blogs and there are some bad ones. Return of Kings is a good one. If you all would like some good Catholic/Orthodox reactionary blogs to read please let me know because I know of many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)