So the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant is concerned with young men born XY competing in girl's sport at the high school and college level. Why?
I think it's great that the trannies are wrecking this for women as women should not be competing in team sports that mimic what were traditionally known as male or individual sports like wrestling that were once the exclusive domain of boys and men. Nor do I think it right that girls sometimes make it on to the boy's football teams. We've had a number of girls do that at our local high school over the years.
One of the biggest concerns by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in the recent article at Church Militant is the following:
Quote"It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner's podium, and to receive critical scholarship."
Good I say. Women shouldn't be getting scholarships for competing in sports and neither should any male that is in a sport that doesn't produce revenue for the school. Why should normal students, you know the ones paying full price to receive an education, be subsidizing non-revenue producing sport? Tuition is high enough.
What happened to parents instructing young women in things like home economics? I would think most Catholics would value a girl being able to mend socks, sew a button, and cook than head a soccer ball into a goal. Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't it also make sense that girls imitating boys in sports activities were the original gender-benders? I say turnabout is fair play!
Girls should be supporting boys in sports by attending games and cheering for them. Then they may have a chance of becoming suitable wives one day rather than competing with their husbands in other areas and learning to provide nurturing environments in their future homes for their families.
What is also delicious about this "problem" is that it took women having the vote for these issues to come home to roost in the first place. To quote Cardinal Dolan one time talking about a football player who came out as a homosexual I say, "bravo!".
Either way, I think this topic should be of far greater concern to Traditional Catholics than women wearing pants.
Don't you?
Here is a link to the article.
POLL: AMERICANS OPPOSE TRANSGENDERS IN SPORTS (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/poll-americans-oppose-transgenders-in-sports)
But the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant thinks transgenders are stealing from women. I don't think they thought this one through too well. Do you?
What's worse than either is the millions of men glued to their television set in a homoerotic act of athletic onanism.
I support everything Smith is saying. And I'll take it a step further. I oppose high risk combat missions (military and police) for healthy women of childbearing age. The majority are sexually active, not practicing chastity. So they must contracept, and if they don't they may be unaware they are putting a 1st trimester child in danger. They have a moral responsibility to protect the life within. I also oppose women sterilizing themselves for a career. Instead, they can do supportive jobs that don't put themselves directly in harm's way.
The only thing I'd disagree with is that I see value in traditional women only sports teams like volleyball, basketball, gymnastics and the like. It's fun, competition and teammanship are good things, and it's healthy. I oppose women in heavy contact sports for the reasons I mentioned above.
Transgender Activists v Feminist Activists is shaping up to be an excellent spectator sport.
Trannies v wimmin - what could be more entertaining? Let the games begin.
It will certainly be more fun to watch than a bunch of athletes running around a track, or chasing around after a ball, or swimming up and down in a pool of water.
What is sport for? It sport even Catholic? Or is it Pagan?
Isn't sport, whether for men or women, simply a way of absorbing and exhausting energy that would otherwise be spent in the kind of physical labour that comes with chopping firewood, hunting animals, making things and fixing them, the kind of activities that no-one in an industrial/technological society is obliged to engage in?
Wrestling, boxing, running, lifting weights are also very useful ways of training men to become better soldiers and defenders. But this is sport as a means to an end, not an end in itself which modern sport has become.
Who cares who can run fastest if that ability is not put to any practical use at all other than demonstrating the prowess of the athlete?
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 12, 2019, 02:41:41 AM
So the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant is concerned with young men born XY competing in girl's sport at the high school and college level. Why?
I think it's great that the trannies are wrecking this for women as women should not be competing in team sports that mimic what were traditionally known as male or individual sports like wrestling that were once the exclusive domain of boys and men. Nor do I think it right that girls sometimes make it on to the boy's football teams. We've had a number of girls do that at our local high school over the years.
One of the biggest concerns by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in the recent article at Church Militant is the following:
Quote"It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner's podium, and to receive critical scholarship."
Good I say. Women shouldn't be getting scholarships for competing in sports and neither should any male that is in a sport that doesn't produce revenue for the school. Why should normal students, you know the ones paying full price to receive an education, be subsidizing non-revenue producing sport? Tuition is high enough.
What happened to parents instructing young women in things like home economics? I would think most Catholics would value a girl being able to mend socks, sew a button, and cook than head a soccer ball into a goal. Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't it also make sense that girls imitating boys in sports activities were the original gender-benders? I say turnabout is fair play!
Girls should be supporting boys in sports by attending games and cheering for them. Then they may have a chance of becoming suitable wives one day rather than competing with their husbands in other areas and learning to provide nurturing environments in their future homes for their families.
What is also delicious about this "problem" is that it took women having the vote for these issues to come home to roost in the first place. To quote Cardinal Dolan one time talking about a football player who came out as a homosexual I say, "bravo!".
Either way, I think this topic should be of far greater concern to Traditional Catholics than women wearing pants.
Don't you?
Here is a link to the article.
POLL: AMERICANS OPPOSE TRANSGENDERS IN SPORTS (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/poll-americans-oppose-transgenders-in-sports)
But the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant thinks transgenders are stealing from women. I don't think they thought this one through too well. Do you?
First bold segment. According to this logic men should only be taught how to make a wage, build a house, and raise animals..whatever. Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Second bold point. Absolutely NOT.This is a big problem for a few reasons. One, there is a modesty concern. Two, if it is not intellectually appropriate for a women to play sports because wanting to win will make her masculine and ruin her gentle nature ( I am paraphrasing from previous threads on this topic) than how can it be intellectually appropriate to want to see a win, want to see the other team defeated, etc. Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
This is also a problem for family life. You get junior playing sports, he goes to practice a few nights a week, special gear, blah blah, and then the whole family and of course the girls, come to cheer and watch and praise. What female equivalent is there for the girls in the family? When is the whole family going to sit and cheer for the daughter weekend after weekend. Not only does this imbalance nurture sibling resentment, (brother is a boy therefor he gets to do fun stuff and mom and dad cheer him on and act like he is amazing...I get to do nothing and nobody cheers for me ever) but it builds up sports and athletics as a goal to which young trad boys should aspire. Do we want that? Do you want our boys aiming to be NFL players or what have you?
I find sports good when they are used means of instilling discipline and teamwork. Unfortunately, that is no longer the focus for most, it seems. The number of days a week that these kids (and their parents) are engaged in sports activities, it is insane. They do it to the detriment of their own family time, actual work, and studies. We definitely have a sports-first mentality.
At my school:
1. A child missed mandatory school events because his coach told him that sports were more important that school. Apparently his parents agreed.
2. A child missed mandatory events because the daughter has figure skating five nights a week and the parents said that the sports were too expensive to miss out on.
3. A child told me that he didn't try in school because he expected to become a professional sports player. I told him his chances were about one in a million and that if he did make it, the average time in sports is around four years so he better have a backup plan.
4. Many other children have said the same thing: pro sports player, although I've only had the one use it as an excuse for poor effort.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 12, 2019, 02:41:41 AM
So the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant is concerned with young men born XY competing in girl's sport at the high school and college level. Why?
I think it's great that the trannies are wrecking this for women as women should not be competing in team sports that mimic what were traditionally known as male or individual sports like wrestling that were once the exclusive domain of boys and men. Nor do I think it right that girls sometimes make it on to the boy's football teams. We've had a number of girls do that at our local high school over the years.
One of the biggest concerns by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in the recent article at Church Militant is the following:
Quote"It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner's podium, and to receive critical scholarship."
Good I say. Women shouldn't be getting scholarships for competing in sports and neither should any male that is in a sport that doesn't produce revenue for the school. Why should normal students, you know the ones paying full price to receive an education, be subsidizing non-revenue producing sport? Tuition is high enough.
What happened to parents instructing young women in things like home economics? I would think most Catholics would value a girl being able to mend socks, sew a button, and cook than head a soccer ball into a goal. Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't it also make sense that girls imitating boys in sports activities were the original gender-benders? I say turnabout is fair play!
Girls should be supporting boys in sports by attending games and cheering for them. Then they may have a chance of becoming suitable wives one day rather than competing with their husbands in other areas and learning to provide nurturing environments in their future homes for their families.
What is also delicious about this "problem" is that it took women having the vote for these issues to come home to roost in the first place. To quote Cardinal Dolan one time talking about a football player who came out as a homosexual I say, "bravo!".
Either way, I think this topic should be of far greater concern to Traditional Catholics than women wearing pants.
Don't you?
Here is a link to the article.
POLL: AMERICANS OPPOSE TRANSGENDERS IN SPORTS (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/poll-americans-oppose-transgenders-in-sports)
But the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant thinks transgenders are stealing from women. I don't think they thought this one through too well. Do you?
First bold segment. According to this logic men should only be taught how to make a wage, build a house, and raise animals..whatever. Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Studies show that even simple activities like lifting heavy objects boost testosterone enormously. When boys engage in masculine activities like sports and thus become more masculine themselves, they are absolutely preparing for their vocation which will necessarily be masculine as well.
Quote
Second bold point. Absolutely NOT.This is a big problem for a few reasons. One, there is a modesty concern. Two, if it is not intellectually appropriate for a women to play sports because wanting to win will make her masculine and ruin her gentle nature ( I am paraphrasing from previous threads on this topic) than how can it be intellectually appropriate to want to see a win, want to see the other team defeated, etc. Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
This is also a problem for family life. You get junior playing sports, he goes to practice a few nights a week, special gear, blah blah, and then the whole family and of course the girls, come to cheer and watch and praise. What female equivalent is there for the girls in the family? When is the whole family going to sit and cheer for the daughter weekend after weekend. Not only does this imbalance nurture sibling resentment, (brother is a boy therefor he gets to do fun stuff and mom and dad cheer him on and act like he is amazing...I get to do nothing and nobody cheers for me ever) but it builds up sports and athletics as a goal to which young trad boys should aspire. Do we want that? Do you want our boys aiming to be NFL players or what have you?
"Making boys feel good about themselves." Yes, exactly. This is one of the many benefits of boys playing sports. Brothers being cheered on by their sisters, far from nurturing resentment, nurtures familial affection. What nurtures resentment is the attitude that there needs to be an "equivalent" supplied for every good enjoyed by one sibling that cannot be enjoyed by another, rather than an attitude of being happy for others.
One of the SSPX seminarians in Virginia at the moment was an all-Ireland hurling champion before he joined the seminary, another was a high school state football champion. There's a former Manchester United professional soccer player who's now a priest and trying to revive the traditional Dominican-rite in the Indult. Athletics were a perfectly healthy aspiration for these men that lead them to even higher aspirations.
Transgender Activists v Feminist Activists is shaping up to be an excellent spectator sport.
Trannies v wimmin - what could be more entertaining? Let the games begin.
I cannot abide sport (eh and the noise of spectators cheering in a soccer match) but I would buy ringside seats for that :cheeseheadbeer:
Yaniv v's Hillary bawahaaaaaaaa
Quote from: lauermar on November 12, 2019, 04:20:05 AM
I oppose high risk combat missions (military and police) for healthy women of childbearing age.
Any women at all in the military or police forces is a sure sign that one's civilization has reached a terminal stage of decay.
If women could participate in duels in the high point of Catholic civilization, the "middle ages," (thereby implying they had legal rights unlike later Prot societies), why on earth can't women participate in sports now. Most of this "women can't do this_____" talk comes from Prots reading their Bibles a bit too literally, and is very un-Catholic.
Quote from: lauermar on November 12, 2019, 04:20:05 AM
I see value in traditional women only sports teams like volleyball, basketball, gymnastics and the like. It's fun, competition and teammanship are good things, and it's healthy.
1. Not actually "traditional."
2. Violent, contact sports.
3. Competition is not "healthy" for girls.
a. It makes them unfit to be wives and mothers.
b. It messes with their hormones. Competition spurs testosterone.
4. "Teammanship" is a masculine thing that spurs testosterone. It's not natural for girls.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 06:26:36 AM
Who cares who can run fastest if that ability is not put to any practical use at all other than demonstrating the prowess of the athlete?
Well, the ancient Greeks for one.
St. Paul for another.
And all people since then.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Historical falsehood. The Greeks cared more about winning the Olympics than they did about winning wars.
Even as late as St. Augustine around the year 400 AD, he still used the Greek dating system of counting years by the Olympiads. So this was their foundational belief, just like we date our years from the birth of Christ.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
Sarcasm is not an argument. Women are created by God to be helpmates to men. Girls who are cheering for boys and "making them feel good about themselves" are preparing themselves for their life's vocation.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on November 12, 2019, 08:21:21 AM
1. A child missed mandatory school events because his coach told him that sports were more important that school. Apparently his parents agreed.
So did the ancient Greeks. We get our word "Gymnasium" from the Greek word for school, and it's current usage accurately reflects that the Greeks placed physical education ahead of academics.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on November 12, 2019, 08:21:21 AM
3. A child told me that he didn't try in school because he expected to become a professional sports player. I told him his chances were about one in a million and that if he did make it, the average time in sports is around four years so he better have a backup plan.
a. Your math is all wrong. The odds are much better than one in a million.
b. You are discouraging your student from having youthful big dreams by dumping false old-man rationalizations on him.
c. Only those who try will make it.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
it builds up sports and athletics as a goal to which young trad boys should aspire. Do we want that? Do you want our boys aiming to be NFL players or what have you?
Yes, absolutely. We will never get out of our current pit of despair without warriors. Why should traditional Catholic boys be wimps? Why shouldn't they be strong, masculine leaders?
I just posted a link yesterday to an article about Philip Rivers, the quarterback for the San Diego Chargers (currently leading the NFL in passing yards). We need more traditional Catholic young men like Philip Rivers.
https://aleteia.org/2019/04/02/quarterback-and-devoted-dad-philip-rivers-welcomes-ninth-child/
Quarterback and devoted dad Philip Rivers welcomes ninth childThe footballer and devout Catholic shares his secret to a successful career and family life. Los Angeles Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers and his wife Tiffany recently welcomed their ninth child into the family. The sweet announcement came from Rivers' team last Tuesday, who posted on Twitter the iconic clip from The Lion King where Simba the cub is raised into the air in front of all the other animals, with a simple message: "SHE'S HERE, welcome to the world Anna Rivers."
The high school sweethearts who married back in 2001 now have seven daughters and two sons: Halle, 16; Caroline, 13; Grace, 12; Gunner, 10; Sarah, 8; Peter, 7; Rebecca, 5; Clare, 3, and newborn Anna. While the pro-player makes a 90-mile commute each day from his home in San Diego to his team in Los Angeles, he still makes sure he has plenty of time for his family.
In fact, an interview with the family that is available on the club's website, Chargers.com, gives a little insight as to how the devout Catholic manages to prioritize his family while being a star on the field. His eldest child Halle shares: "He's so selfless. He's an NFL quarterback; he's doing a million different things every day, but every day he comes home, and he wants to be with us. If he has one extra minute that he could do something else, he'll be with us."
His son Gunner echoes this sentiment: "Whenever he's home, he plays with us and he's with us all the time ... we like to throw the football in the yard. We like to putt on the putting green, watch football and do things like that." Philips himself explains that mealtimes are paramount in maintaining a healthy family life, with mid-week meals an absolute must — other days are trickier with his playing schedule.
After 18 years of marriage, Rivers' wife Tiffany still seems to be his number one fan, admiring his approach to family life and the way he always puts others first. If you read the whole interview you'll see how the successful quarterback has nothing but praise for his wife, putting the success of their marriage and his career down to the fact that they're best friends and that she is a huge source of support in all areas of his life.
At 37 years old — the upper range for football players — Philip Rivers will not be playing in the NFL for many more seasons, but it's seems likely that he'll continue to be a great role model for his children and fans alike for years to come.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dtl6acWVAAAF_jd?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
4. "Teammanship" is a masculine thing that spurs testosterone. It's not natural for girls.
Natural biological production of a natural hormone is now not "natural"? Or just the teammanship? Then again, there is redundancy here. Sometimes women
do need to cooperate and lead a group.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 09:41:45 AM
"Making boys feel good about themselves." Yes, exactly. This is one of the many benefits of boys playing sports. Brothers being cheered on by their sisters, far from nurturing resentment, nurtures familial affection. What nurtures resentment is the attitude that there needs to be an "equivalent" supplied for every good enjoyed by one sibling that cannot be enjoyed by another, rather than an attitude of being happy for others.
One of the SSPX seminarians in Virginia at the moment was an all-Ireland hurling champion before he joined the seminary, another was a high school state football champion. There's a former Manchester United professional soccer player who's now a priest and trying to revive the traditional Dominican-rite in the Indult. Athletics were a perfectly healthy aspiration for these men that lead them to even higher aspirations.
Yes, good points. And what your examples point out is that we cannot revive the Church with effeminate priests. We need strong, masculine men like the ones that you describe to be leaders of the faithful.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 12, 2019, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
4. "Teammanship" is a masculine thing that spurs testosterone. It's not natural for girls.
Natural biological production of a natural hormone is now not "natural"?
For girls to imitate boys, and thereby stimulate production of masculine hormones, is not natural. It makes them unfit to conceive and give birth. Just as in reverse it is not natural for boys to dress themselves in female clothes that stimulate production of female hormones.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3094813/Mothers-losing-ability-birth-naturally-breastfeed-babies-claims-doctor-blames-rise-C-sections-use-drugs.html
Women are losing their power to give birth naturally by relying on caesareans and other interventions, according to a renowned medical expert.
Dr Odent, 85, formerly head of the surgical and maternity units at Pithiviers hospital in Northern France, said: 'To me it
demonstrates the obvious — that women are losing the capacity to give birth.
'That is the primary phenomenon . . . the number of women who give
birth to babies naturally is becoming insignificant.
'I believe that the
human oxytocin system — oxytocin being the hormone of love, fundamental to birth and bonding, even in adulthood —
is growing weaker.'
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:35:30 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 12, 2019, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
4. "Teammanship" is a masculine thing that spurs testosterone. It's not natural for girls.
Natural biological production of a natural hormone is now not "natural"?
For girls to imitate boys, and thereby stimulate production of masculine hormones, is not natural. It makes them unfit to conceive and give birth. Just as in reverse it is not natural for boys to dress themselves in female clothes that stimulate production of female hormones.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3094813/Mothers-losing-ability-birth-naturally-breastfeed-babies-claims-doctor-blames-rise-C-sections-use-drugs.html
Women are losing their power to give birth naturally by relying on caesareans and other interventions, according to a renowned medical expert.
Dr Odent, 85, formerly head of the surgical and maternity units at Pithiviers hospital in Northern France, said: 'To me it demonstrates the obvious — that women are losing the capacity to give birth.
'That is the primary phenomenon . . . the number of women who give birth to babies naturally is becoming insignificant.
'I believe that the human oxytocin system — oxytocin being the hormone of love, fundamental to birth and bonding, even in adulthood — is growing weaker.'
Testosterone levels are also falling. Men and women are increasingly having fertility and reproduction problems more caused by the over-consumption of antinutrient laden, nutritionally deficient plant foods and the under consumption of foods derived from animals which contain the nutrients and essential amino acids necessary for hormone health. The Standard American Diet, which is also the Standard Western Diet, contains half as much animal foods as in the 1960s.
Plant foods like soya contain phytoestrogens which mimic estrogen. If a boy or a man consumes soya products, he is also consuming these substances. These have also been reported to disrupt ovary functioning in women. Plant foods in general contain antinutrients which disrupt digestion and mess with the thyroid. Then there is the simple fact that plant foods are deficient in very nutrients that are required for fully functioning human health.
The push away from strength and vigour giving meat and saturated animal fat is backed by all the agencies - the UN, the WHO, all the governments particularly in the West and all the medical professional bodies. And if these organisations are pushing something, is it not wise to question it?
You want to increase testosterone levels in boys and men and increase the reproductive health of women and girls? Stop eating the corporate, new world order diet and adopt a traditional diet instead.
Trads need trad diets. And so does everyone else.
And never eat soya.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
Sarcasm is not an argument. Women are created by God to be helpmates to men. Girls who are cheering for boys and "making them feel good about themselves" are preparing themselves for their life's vocation.
Not as part of highschool or professional cheerleading teams, though.
It's one thing to root from the stands anonymously, that's morally neutral. It's another thing to dress up in miniskirts and dance in a sexually suggestive manner for everyone to see. The latter is spiritually unwholesome.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 02:11:05 PM
Testosterone levels are also falling.
Yes, this is true. Both men and women are suffering from messed-up hormones caused by living in a society that encourages them to be androgynous creatures.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 02:11:05 PM
Men and women are increasingly having fertility and reproduction problems more caused by the over-consumption of antinutrient laden, nutritionally deficient plant foods and the under consumption of foods derived from animals which contain the nutrients and essential amino acids necessary for hormone health. The Standard American Diet, which is also the Standard Western Diet, contains half as much animal foods as in the 1960s.
Interesting theory.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 02:11:05 PM
The push away from strength and vigour giving meat and saturated animal fat is backed by all the agencies - the UN, the WHO, all the governments particularly in the West and all the medical professional bodies. And if these organisations are pushing something, is it not wise to question it?
One would have to suspect an agenda with ulterior motives.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 02:11:05 PM
You want to increase testosterone levels in boys and men and increase the reproductive health of women and girls? Stop eating the corporate, new world order diet and adopt a traditional diet instead.
You can start with Weston Price.
https://www.westonaprice.org/
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 12, 2019, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
Sarcasm is not an argument. Women are created by God to be helpmates to men. Girls who are cheering for boys and "making them feel good about themselves" are preparing themselves for their life's vocation.
Not as part of highschool or professional cheerleading teams, though.
It's one thing to root from the stands anonymously, that's morally neutral. It's another thing to dress up in miniskirts and dance in a sexually suggestive manner for everyone to see. The latter is spiritually unwholesome.
Right, that's what I had in mind.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 09:41:45 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 12, 2019, 02:41:41 AM
So the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant is concerned with young men born XY competing in girl's sport at the high school and college level. Why?
I think it's great that the trannies are wrecking this for women as women should not be competing in team sports that mimic what were traditionally known as male or individual sports like wrestling that were once the exclusive domain of boys and men. Nor do I think it right that girls sometimes make it on to the boy's football teams. We've had a number of girls do that at our local high school over the years.
One of the biggest concerns by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in the recent article at Church Militant is the following:
Quote"It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner's podium, and to receive critical scholarship."
Good I say. Women shouldn't be getting scholarships for competing in sports and neither should any male that is in a sport that doesn't produce revenue for the school. Why should normal students, you know the ones paying full price to receive an education, be subsidizing non-revenue producing sport? Tuition is high enough.
What happened to parents instructing young women in things like home economics? I would think most Catholics would value a girl being able to mend socks, sew a button, and cook than head a soccer ball into a goal. Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't it also make sense that girls imitating boys in sports activities were the original gender-benders? I say turnabout is fair play!
Girls should be supporting boys in sports by attending games and cheering for them. Then they may have a chance of becoming suitable wives one day rather than competing with their husbands in other areas and learning to provide nurturing environments in their future homes for their families.
What is also delicious about this "problem" is that it took women having the vote for these issues to come home to roost in the first place. To quote Cardinal Dolan one time talking about a football player who came out as a homosexual I say, "bravo!".
Either way, I think this topic should be of far greater concern to Traditional Catholics than women wearing pants.
Don't you?
Here is a link to the article.
POLL: AMERICANS OPPOSE TRANSGENDERS IN SPORTS (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/poll-americans-oppose-transgenders-in-sports)
But the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant thinks transgenders are stealing from women. I don't think they thought this one through too well. Do you?
First bold segment. According to this logic men should only be taught how to make a wage, build a house, and raise animals..whatever. Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Studies show that even simple activities like lifting heavy objects boost testosterone enormously. When boys engage in masculine activities like sports and thus become more masculine themselves, they are absolutely preparing for their vocation which will necessarily be masculine as well.
Quote
Second bold point. Absolutely NOT.This is a big problem for a few reasons. One, there is a modesty concern. Two, if it is not intellectually appropriate for a women to play sports because wanting to win will make her masculine and ruin her gentle nature ( I am paraphrasing from previous threads on this topic) than how can it be intellectually appropriate to want to see a win, want to see the other team defeated, etc. Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
This is also a problem for family life. You get junior playing sports, he goes to practice a few nights a week, special gear, blah blah, and then the whole family and of course the girls, come to cheer and watch and praise. What female equivalent is there for the girls in the family? When is the whole family going to sit and cheer for the daughter weekend after weekend. Not only does this imbalance nurture sibling resentment, (brother is a boy therefor he gets to do fun stuff and mom and dad cheer him on and act like he is amazing...I get to do nothing and nobody cheers for me ever) but it builds up sports and athletics as a goal to which young trad boys should aspire. Do we want that? Do you want our boys aiming to be NFL players or what have you?
"Making boys feel good about themselves." Yes, exactly. This is one of the many benefits of boys playing sports. Brothers being cheered on by their sisters, far from nurturing resentment, nurtures familial affection. What nurtures resentment is the attitude that there needs to be an "equivalent" supplied for every good enjoyed by one sibling that cannot be enjoyed by another, rather than an attitude of being happy for others.
One of the SSPX seminarians in Virginia at the moment was an all-Ireland hurling champion before he joined the seminary, another was a high school state football champion. There's a former Manchester United professional soccer player who's now a priest and trying to revive the traditional Dominican-rite in the Indult. Athletics were a perfectly healthy aspiration for these men that lead them to even higher aspirations.
Not an equivalent for EVERY good enjoyed by other siblings, but some. There is absolutely NO equivalent for girls at all. This is a huge problem and all my trad mom friends deal with the same difficulties.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Historical falsehood. The Greeks cared more about winning the Olympics than they did about winning wars.
Even as late as St. Augustine around the year 400 AD, he still used the Greek dating system of counting years by the Olympiads. So this was their foundational belief, just like we date our years from the birth of Christ.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
Sarcasm is not an argument. Women are created by God to be helpmates to men. Girls who are cheering for boys and "making them feel good about themselves" are preparing themselves for their life's vocation.
Making a man feel good about himself by cheering while he runs after a ball is NOT a women's vocation. Supporting him as a husband and father, respecting him, and building love, honor, and trust for him in the minds on one's children is her vocation. The pride and worth a man feels in his vocation, the times when he feels "good about himself," should come from doing the will of God and raising his family for heaven...not playing a game and fueling his ego. Sports are all about pride and self-image. I agree with Awkward, if men really want to make sure they are super masculine and pump their bodies with testosterone, they should be clearing a few acres of land, stacking a rick of wood a day, or walking/hiking through nature.
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 04:01:38 PMSports are all about pride and self-image. I agree with Awkward, if men really want to make sure they are super masculine and pump their bodies with testosterone, they should be clearing a few acres of land, stacking a rick of wood a day, or walking/hiking through nature.
Girls should be able to play sports because it's unfair, but sports are evil and men should only be able to chop wood? Make up your mind
Yeah, it seems likely a girl playing a sport, and living a normal Western life, still doesn't exert the physical effort and calories a girl 100 years or more ago would have. As long as it's not coed, and ideally officiated by a man, it seems goofy not to want girls to participate in sports.
There's no way some sporty girl has more, or even comparable, testosterone levels to a properly developed man. Personally, I find little to no difference in trad women/girls than non-trad midwestern girls, and if keeping a girl from playing sports keeps her more pure and lady-like than the girls who do not, then this is certainly news to me.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 12:53:22 PM
Quote from: lauermar on November 12, 2019, 04:20:05 AM
I oppose high risk combat missions (military and police) for healthy women of childbearing age.
Any women at all in the military or police forces is a sure sign that one's civilization has reached a terminal stage of decay.
Yes, and soon they will be signing up women for the draft as well. That just takes the cake, doesn't it. It will not be long before "women and children first" becomes a free for all with the men slugging the women so that they can get onto the lifeboats.
Can anyone show me a time in any Catholic culture in which women played sports? If you cannot use logic to figure out why this is bad, then is not 1,000+ years of evidence from every Catholic nation enough to rest the case?
There is a clearing in the woods. In this clearing is an abandoned house with a tall imposing fence surrounding it. The fence has a gate and the gate is locked.
Some people will approach this and say: "Why is this here? Why is it fenced off, why is it locked? Seems strange, I cannot figure out why, let's cut the lock and go look inside."
But others will say "Interesting, I shouldn't go in there."
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:16:10 PM
a. Your math is all wrong. The odds are much better than one in a million.
Sorry I wasn't able to get you an exact statistic.
Quoteb. You are discouraging your student from having youthful big dreams by dumping false old-man rationalizations on him.
c. Only those who try will make it.
You're missing the point. I only told that one student because he was using it as an excuse to not try at anything else. I'm discouraging stupidly throwing aside any kind of study (such as math, language arts, history, etc.) for the big dream of being the next Messi. Trying to achieve in sports is fine, but trying to achieve in sports to the neglect of all other things is ridiculous.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 05:00:33 PM
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
Sport as training for combat is an ancient masculine activity.
Sport as an end in itself with the aim of gaining applause, prizes and admiration is little more than pagan body worship.
Is it masculine to spend countless hours training the body to excel on the sports field?
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 12, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
Can anyone show me a time in any Catholic culture in which women played sports?
Can anyone show you a time in any Catholic culture in which men played organised sports for any other reason than to develop skills in battle. And I don't mean boys kicking balls around in the street, but fully organised sport as an end in itself.
Modern sport is pagan. And Catholic girls are supposed to cheer them on and support them in what, exactly? The quest for prizes, adulation and bodily prowess.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on November 12, 2019, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:16:10 PM
a. Your math is all wrong. The odds are much better than one in a million.
Sorry I wasn't able to get you an exact statistic.
It's not a question of being "exact." It's a question of being within several orders of magnitude. Your statement to your student is just plain wrong.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on November 12, 2019, 10:22:06 PM
You're missing the point. I only told that one student because he was using it as an excuse to not try at anything else. I'm discouraging stupidly throwing aside any kind of study (such as math, language arts, history, etc.) for the big dream of being the next Messi. Trying to achieve in sports is fine, but trying to achieve in sports to the neglect of all other things is ridiculous.
Neglect of what -- feminist studies? That's what you get at college these days. The idea that boys should sit around in desks reading books instead of engaging in healthy physical activity is what's "ridiculous." And talk about "extremes." The extremes of useless, pointless studies has gone far beyond "ridiculous."
We need masculine boys and feminine girls if there is to be a next generation. You don't get that by turning boys into girls and girls into boys as we are currently doing. Today's population collapse demonstrates that effeminate boys who spend all day reading books and masculine girls developing muscular thighs playing competitive sports are not capable of reproducing themselves.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 11:40:40 PM
We need masculine boys and feminine girls if there is to be a next generation. You don't get that by turning boys into girls and girls into boys as we are currently doing. Today's population collapse demonstrates that effeminate boys who spend all day reading books and masculine girls developing muscular thighs playing competitive sports are not capable of reproducing themselves.
Definitely. The question is - how to achieve this.
Relating back to an earlier post, the Weston Price Foundation claims that a traditional diet can alleviate many of today's fertility problems. I remember the 1960s and 70s when people ate twice as much meat as they do today. Men and women took traditional roles, yes, but just as significantly both men and women were strong, vigorous and cheerful.
For men and women to be strong in their traditional roles they need to eat proper food, not the plant based diet of today. The average American gets only one third of his calories from animal foods. This is seriously deficient and is the cause, some argue, of many of the health problems, both physical and mental, that are so prevalent across the West. Predominantly plant based diets make people weak, depressed and listless, as I can personally attest.
Which brings me to the other reason for boys and men to develop their physical prowess - hunting, obviously. I'm sure there are few girls and women who would not be ready to cheer the boys and men who came back from the hunt with enough meat to feed everyone. Are there not a thousand other activities that require masculine strength, perseverance, self discipline, team work etc, that have some useful ends that women and girls would truly appreciate?
Or you could send your young men to go and fast on a mountain for a month. That would be very useful.
The following are some excerpts from what I think is an excellent book:
What is True Education by Fr Edward Leen (C.S.Sp. M.A., D.D. Litt), written in 1943, the year before he died. I think it sheds further light on why competitive sports have a place in life for boys and why the same does not apply for girls.
QuoteMan is to dominate by force and intelligence; a woman by tenderness and devotedness. Initiative suits the man: adaptability is called for in the woman...
...Selfish and violent competition, with the passions it engenders, is unsuited to girls' education. A girl should aim, in play only at the acquisition of that strength and grace which becomes a woman. Games should be indulged in by her not for the fierce joy of overcoming a rival, but for the proper and harmonious development of her physique as woman. Since grace, restraint and endurance are more necessary for her than mere brute strength, all that fosters the 'abandon', the savage energy and the fierce desire to win, that belong to keen competitive games is harmful for the budding woman. Still more unbecoming for her is the unrestrained exultation following the victory.
"A team of victorious and yelling schoolboys stir our interest and our indulgence; a team of victorious and yelling schoolgirls strikes us simply as painful. It is so ungraceful as to be almost disgraceful. It is good to develop in the boy the spirit that makes for conquest. The girl is to be educated in the spirit of helpfulness rather than in the spirit of conquest. This spirit of triumph carries with it that element of selfishness and acquisition which harms the woman's nature.
The fostering of team-spirit in strenuous games is normal for boys, since man is forced to form associations with his fellows and work in union with them in order to succeed in the battle fought out in the arena of life. This is not called for, in the same degree, in the case of girls. Not for her the fierce strife of the arena and the passions that it stirs. The movement towards athleticism and its accompanying spirit, is pernicious in its effects in the feminine world. It tends to rob girls of what should properly belong to them, such as modesty, reserve, dignity, grace, tenderness, sensibility and devotedness to a person. The qualities which athleticism develops in her to replace these characteristically feminine ones are no asset. Too vigorous competitive games under the eyes of the public are very unsuitable for girls. The rob them of their reserve and modesty that should be their appanage. They savour of that "exhibitionism" reprobated by Pius XI, in his encyclical on education, as ruinous to womanliness. They are, moreover, harmful from the physical point of view. The violent movements of strenuous games produce effects that unfit girls for, to render difficult, the functions of maternity. It is a pity. Vigour, independence, courage, force, hardihood are qualities that are called for in a boy owing to the role he has to fulfil in life. But these are not the qualities to stress in forming the girl to be a true woman.
A bit of information about Fr Leen:
Educator, retreat master, and spiritual writer; b. Abbeyfeale, Ireland, Aug. 17, 1885; d. Dublin, Nov. 10, 1944. Edward Thomas Leen grew up in a deeply religious family, which produced three priests, including Archbishop James Leen, CSSp, of Mauritius. Educated at Rockwell College, Cashel, he made his profession in the Congregation of the Holy Ghost at Chevilly, France, in 1909. After studying philosophy at University College, Dublin, he went to Rome in 1912, where he earned his doctorate in theology summa cum laude at the Gregorian University and earned the Pius X gold medal for excellence in dogmatic theology. After working for two years as a missionary in Nigeria, he returned to Dublin and became dean of studies and subsequently president of Blackrock College. He played a prominent role in the founding of the Missionary Sisters of the Holy Rosary (1924). In 1930 he joined the staff of the Spiritan Senior Seminary in Ireland, of which he became president in 1939.
His other works are
Progress in Mental Prayer (1935);
In the Likeness of Christ (1936);
The Holy Ghost (1937);
Why the Cross? (1938);
The True Vine and Its Branches (1938);
The Church Before Pilate (1939); and
The Voice of a Priest, ed. by Bernard J. Kelly, CSSp (1946).
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 03:49:42 PM
Not an equivalent for EVERY good enjoyed by other siblings, but some. There is absolutely NO equivalent for girls at all. This is a huge problem and all my trad mom friends deal with the same difficulties.
I know families in which the girls did compete in their fields – cooking, singing, sewing, photography. Their families encouraged and supported them, including those who were too young to have developed competence in any field themselves, but just enjoyed being part of the family at the event. It may not be a weekly thing for the girls, but it was something they applied themselves to with that commitment and attention to detail in which woman is known to excel. They earned the rewards and benefits, including learning to cope with disappointment and not giving up if one didn't manage to secure the blue ribbon.
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 13, 2019, 04:06:04 AM
The following are some excerpts from what I think is an excellent book: What is True Education by Fr Edward Leen (C.S.Sp. M.A., D.D. Litt), written in 1943, the year before he died. I think it sheds further light on why competitive sports have a place in life for boys and why the same does not apply for girls.
QuoteMan is to dominate by force and intelligence; a woman by tenderness and devotedness. Initiative suits the man: adaptability is called for in the woman...
...Selfish and violent competition, with the passions it engenders, is unsuited to girls' education. A girl should aim, in play only at the acquisition of that strength and grace which becomes a woman. Games should be indulged in by her not for the fierce joy of overcoming a rival, but for the proper and harmonious development of her physique as woman. Since grace, restraint and endurance are more necessary for her than mere brute strength, all that fosters the 'abandon', the savage energy and the fierce desire to win, that belong to keen competitive games is harmful for the budding woman. Still more unbecoming for her is the unrestrained exultation following the victory.
"A team of victorious and yelling schoolboys stir our interest and our indulgence; a team of victorious and yelling schoolgirls strikes us simply as painful. It is so ungraceful as to be almost disgraceful. It is good to develop in the boy the spirit that makes for conquest. The girl is to be educated in the spirit of helpfulness rather than in the spirit of conquest. This spirit of triumph carries with it that element of selfishness and acquisition which harms the woman's nature.
The fostering of team-spirit in strenuous games is normal for boys, since man is forced to form associations with his fellows and work in union with them in order to succeed in the battle fought out in the arena of life. This is not called for, in the same degree, in the case of girls. Not for her the fierce strife of the arena and the passions that it stirs. The movement towards athleticism and its accompanying spirit, is pernicious in its effects in the feminine world. It tends to rob girls of what should properly belong to them, such as modesty, reserve, dignity, grace, tenderness, sensibility and devotedness to a person. The qualities which athleticism develops in her to replace these characteristically feminine ones are no asset. Too vigorous competitive games under the eyes of the public are very unsuitable for girls. The rob them of their reserve and modesty that should be their appanage. They savour of that "exhibitionism" reprobated by Pius XI, in his encyclical on education, as ruinous to womanliness. They are, moreover, harmful from the physical point of view. The violent movements of strenuous games produce effects that unfit girls for, to render difficult, the functions of maternity. It is a pity. Vigour, independence, courage, force, hardihood are qualities that are called for in a boy owing to the role he has to fulfil in life. But these are not the qualities to stress in forming the girl to be a true woman.
A bit of information about Fr Leen:
Educator, retreat master, and spiritual writer; b. Abbeyfeale, Ireland, Aug. 17, 1885; d. Dublin, Nov. 10, 1944. Edward Thomas Leen grew up in a deeply religious family, which produced three priests, including Archbishop James Leen, CSSp, of Mauritius. Educated at Rockwell College, Cashel, he made his profession in the Congregation of the Holy Ghost at Chevilly, France, in 1909. After studying philosophy at University College, Dublin, he went to Rome in 1912, where he earned his doctorate in theology summa cum laude at the Gregorian University and earned the Pius X gold medal for excellence in dogmatic theology. After working for two years as a missionary in Nigeria, he returned to Dublin and became dean of studies and subsequently president of Blackrock College. He played a prominent role in the founding of the Missionary Sisters of the Holy Rosary (1924). In 1930 he joined the staff of the Spiritan Senior Seminary in Ireland, of which he became president in 1939.
His other works are Progress in Mental Prayer (1935); In the Likeness of Christ (1936); The Holy Ghost (1937); Why the Cross? (1938); The True Vine and Its Branches (1938); The Church Before Pilate (1939); and The Voice of a Priest, ed. by Bernard J. Kelly, CSSp (1946).
Fr Edward Leen seems to think that all women are like the Prioress and none like the Wife of Bath.
The Wife of Bath has been married five times, earns her living as a hat maker, has travelled on pilgrimage all over Europe and is not reluctant to voice her opinions.
The Prioress is shy, modest, dainty and elegant. She never lefts drop a crumb when eating and cries when a dog dies.
And yet Chaucer had room for both among the Canterbury pilgrims.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 12, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
Can anyone show me a time in any Catholic culture in which women played sports?
Can anyone show you a time in any Catholic culture in which men played organised sports for any other reason than to develop skills in battle. And I don't mean boys kicking balls around in the street, but fully organised sport as an end in itself.
Modern sport is pagan. And Catholic girls are supposed to cheer them on and support them in what, exactly? The quest for prizes, adulation and bodily prowess.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:06:24 PM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 05:00:33 PM
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
Sport as training for combat is an ancient masculine activity.
Sport as an end in itself with the aim of gaining applause, prizes and admiration is little more than pagan body worship.
Is it masculine to spend countless hours training the body to excel on the sports field?
Sports have been played by men for all of known history, including in all Catholic nations of the world. It's not our place, in 2019, to judge whether men's motives are pure enough when they engage in the same activities in which men have always engaged.
It's also not our place to decide which aspects of human life are superfluous and which are necessary. Hurling, for instance, has been played in Ireland for at least 4,000 years. Apparently all the men who have played it for millennia disagree with your idea that they are wasting their time.
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 13, 2019, 04:06:04 AM
The following are some excerpts from what I think is an excellent book: What is True Education by Fr Edward Leen (C.S.Sp. M.A., D.D. Litt), written in 1943, the year before he died.
Thanks for posting the excellent excerpt and also for the information re Fr. Edward Leen whom I was not previously aware of.
Do you know whether his books are still available in Ireland?
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 05:00:33 PM
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
I am not belittling ancient masculine activities, I am belittling modern ones. Modern sports do very little if nothing to help men become more masculine in the true sense of the word. Testosterone does not equal masculinity.
Also, I have never said that all of life is fun for boys and not for girls. This is a very particular area of life. Since you seem to have a handle on all the fun social activities for trad Catholic girls, what do your daughters do?
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 13, 2019, 04:06:04 AM
The following are some excerpts from what I think is an excellent book: What is True Education by Fr Edward Leen (C.S.Sp. M.A., D.D. Litt), written in 1943, the year before he died. I think it sheds further light on why competitive sports have a place in life for boys and why the same does not apply for girls.
Here is an article by Fr. Beck reviewing (or at least taking inspiration from) the book for the
Angelus magazine:
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3360
July 2012 A DAUNTING MISSION Fr. Gerard Beck, SSPXWhat Is Education?
Fr. Edward Leen, a Holy Ghost Father renowned for his spiritual writings, but equally qualified to write on the subject of education, described the process and mission of education as follows:
"Christian education is a cultural process by which the reasonable being ushered into this world is prepared, during the years of childhood and adolescence, to play his part worthily as a citizen of the city of men and as a citizen of the city of God. It is an all-embracing process concerned with the whole man, with his intellect, his will, his emotions, and his physical powers: it aims at securing, by a balanced cultivation and development of all these, that the person may not, in the arena of life, prove a traitor either to his manhood or his Christianity."1
It is a noble vision, and one that looks to the essential. A true education is one that prepares a child for the great task of living as it becomes a Catholic man to live. Marked by our materialistic, comfort-driven world, we easily lose sight of this. Education is too often reduced to the very pragmatic "Will it help me in the long run get a better job?"
Quote from: Graham on November 12, 2019, 05:51:57 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 04:01:38 PMSports are all about pride and self-image. I agree with Awkward, if men really want to make sure they are super masculine and pump their bodies with testosterone, they should be clearing a few acres of land, stacking a rick of wood a day, or walking/hiking through nature.
Girls should be able to play sports because it's unfair, but sports are evil and men should only be able to chop wood? Make up your mind
I never said girls should be able to play sports. I said there was a not a fun, social equivalent for trad girls. It has nothing to do with sports. I also never said sports are evil. I just said that they used to serve a very specific purpose in society, and now they don't. Their usefulness is gone, and they are purely for recreation now. You need to read my comments a little more thoroughly, or don't bother responding.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 13, 2019, 09:21:32 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 12, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
Can anyone show me a time in any Catholic culture in which women played sports?
Can anyone show you a time in any Catholic culture in which men played organised sports for any other reason than to develop skills in battle. And I don't mean boys kicking balls around in the street, but fully organised sport as an end in itself.
Modern sport is pagan. And Catholic girls are supposed to cheer them on and support them in what, exactly? The quest for prizes, adulation and bodily prowess.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:06:24 PM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 05:00:33 PM
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
Sport as training for combat is an ancient masculine activity.
Sport as an end in itself with the aim of gaining applause, prizes and admiration is little more than pagan body worship.
Is it masculine to spend countless hours training the body to excel on the sports field?
Sports have been played by men for all of known history, including in all Catholic nations of the world. It's not our place, in 2019, to judge whether men's motives are pure enough when they engage in the same activities in which men have always engaged.
It's also not our place to decide which aspects of human life are superfluous and which are necessary. Hurling, for instance, has been played in Ireland for at least 4,000 years. Apparently all the men who have played it for millennia disagree with your idea that they are wasting their time.
Ok, we know that men have played sports for all of known history. No one is debating that. It is simply that at some point, sports became recreational and was no longer used for developing soldiers/warriors. It is not helpful for a mans vocation to play organized sports. It has nothing to do with pure motives, it is about what ought to be encouraged.
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 13, 2019, 04:33:18 AM
I know families in which the girls did compete in their fields – cooking, singing, sewing, photography.
I was listening to a cooking show on the radio just this past Sunday (hosted by the tall, thin guy with a bow tie who is the publisher of
Cook's Illustrated and has had a cooking show for many years on PBS).
A young girl called in because previously she had called to get suggestions to make her cookies better which she was preparing to enter at the county fair. She called back to tell the hosts that she had used some of their ideas and that she got 3rd place. They were genuinely thrilled to hear the news. It shows that these traditional activities still go on in various places, and nothing is stopping us from participating if we wish.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:13:35 PM.
And Catholic girls are supposed to cheer them on and support them in what, exactly? The quest for prizes, adulation and bodily prowess.
A priest in Maryland gave an excellent sermon last year on exactly this topic and how it plays into having a happy marriage. He used the example of Jacob rolling back the stone over the communal well for Rachel. The stone was designed to require three men to move it, so that no one would have an unfair advantage. Just seeing Rachel moved Jacob to roll back the stone and show off that he had the strength of three men. There was no good reason for him rolling back the stone right then instead of waiting for the other men, except to show off. The instinct to show off his "bodily prowess" and receive "adulation" came out simply by being in Rachel's presence, and being in her presence made him stronger. This is an instinct that all men share and the priest said that a wife needs to be able to bring it out in her husband. As Rachel shows, she also needs to be able to bring it out before marriage if she wants a man to fall in love with and marry her.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 13, 2019, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 05:00:33 PM
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
I am not belittling ancient masculine activities, I am belittling modern ones. Modern sports do very little if nothing to help men become more masculine in the true sense of the word. Testosterone does not equal masculinity.
Also, I have never said that all of life is fun for boys and not for girls. This is a very particular area of life. Since you seem to have a handle on all the fun social activities for trad Catholic girls, what do your daughters do?
Sports are ancient masculine activities. Racing, wrestling, swimming, as well as various forms of throwing, batting, or kicking a ball have all been around for thousands of years. Just because they are still played in modern times doesn't change that.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 13, 2019, 09:53:27 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 13, 2019, 09:21:32 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 12, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
Can anyone show me a time in any Catholic culture in which women played sports?
Can anyone show you a time in any Catholic culture in which men played organised sports for any other reason than to develop skills in battle. And I don't mean boys kicking balls around in the street, but fully organised sport as an end in itself.
Modern sport is pagan. And Catholic girls are supposed to cheer them on and support them in what, exactly? The quest for prizes, adulation and bodily prowess.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 12, 2019, 11:06:24 PM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 05:00:33 PM
What's not a woman's vocation is belittling and insulting an ancient masculine activity like sports. What's not a woman's vocation is sitting around with other women and complaining- especially about their sons' masculine pursuits.
And the idea that boys get all the goods in life while girls get none is the kind of juvenile attitude that might possibly be excused in a child, but not in a grown woman.
Sport as training for combat is an ancient masculine activity.
Sport as an end in itself with the aim of gaining applause, prizes and admiration is little more than pagan body worship.
Is it masculine to spend countless hours training the body to excel on the sports field?
Sports have been played by men for all of known history, including in all Catholic nations of the world. It's not our place, in 2019, to judge whether men's motives are pure enough when they engage in the same activities in which men have always engaged.
It's also not our place to decide which aspects of human life are superfluous and which are necessary. Hurling, for instance, has been played in Ireland for at least 4,000 years. Apparently all the men who have played it for millennia disagree with your idea that they are wasting their time.
Ok, we know that men have played sports for all of known history. No one is debating that. It is simply that at some point, sports became recreational and was no longer used for developing soldiers/warriors. It is not helpful for a mans vocation to play organized sports. It has nothing to do with pure motives, it is about what ought to be encouraged.
Apparently that point was about 4,000 years ago in Ireland, because hurling is well documented and has always been recreational. So far no evidence has been brought forward by you or anyone else that sports were ever anything
but recreational. During all that time, men did believe that playing sports was necessary for developing masculinity. You think you know better, yet have no evidence or historical backing to your assertion.
I have no problem with women playing competitive sports (maybe with exception of fighting sports like boxing, MMA, etc., which I find distasteful in general), in fact I enjoy some of them very much - I watched last two (2015, 2019) Women's World Cup tournaments in football (actual football, which you call soccer, not American football :D), as well as some youth World Cup and Euro tournaments, and one can see a steady progress being made by female football players in terms of skills and tactics. Not every woman has a vocation to motherhood and family life, and some of them have a God-given talent in sport - if they can make a living of that, I don't see a problem with that. The number of women who have enough talent to make living of participation in professional sports is a tiny percentage of female population, so I don't think it would affect social or demographic patterns in a Catholic country in any significant way. Majority of women would still be wives and mothers.
An argument was made in this thread that women playing professional sports lose capacity to have children. I don't think it is an issue, since a woman who decides to make a living of professional sports (or any kind of professional career, for that matter) should choose between career and motherhood anyway, since the two are largely mutually exclusive. I remember Bishop Sanborn saying in one of his interviews that he has no problem with women having full time careers (I think he gave an example of woman being a nuclear scientist) as long as they give up on motherhood and family, since it is impossible be a good mother and wife, and have a full-time career at the same time - you have to choose.
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on November 12, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
Can anyone show me a time in any Catholic culture in which women played sports? If you cannot use logic to figure out why this is bad, then is not 1,000+ years of evidence from every Catholic nation enough to rest the case?
That is not a good argument, since while there is certainly a long tradition of sports in history of Europe, modern full-time professional sport is a relatively new phenomenon which does not have much of a parallel in history.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 13, 2019, 09:49:43 AM
Quote from: Graham on November 12, 2019, 05:51:57 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 04:01:38 PMSports are all about pride and self-image. I agree with Awkward, if men really want to make sure they are super masculine and pump their bodies with testosterone, they should be clearing a few acres of land, stacking a rick of wood a day, or walking/hiking through nature.
Girls should be able to play sports because it's unfair, but sports are evil and men should only be able to chop wood? Make up your mind
I never said girls should be able to play sports. I said there was a not a fun, social equivalent for trad girls. It has nothing to do with sports.
It's true you didnt spell that out. If your problem is theres no exact equivalent for the girls, one of the natural implications is that girls should have access to this outlet too. You never ruled out that implication
QuoteI also never said sports are evil. I just said that they used to serve a very specific purpose in society, and now they don't. Their usefulness is gone, and they are purely for recreation now. You need to read my comments a little more thoroughly, or don't bother responding.
Playing sports still serves the exact same purpose it always did, promoting teamwork, health and athleticism, strategy, and competitiveness, as well as community spirit. I guess the big difference is that it used to support gender roles, and now it doesnt to the same degree
Quote from: Arvinger on November 13, 2019, 10:54:20 AM
I watched last two (2015, 2019) Women's World Cup tournaments in football as well as some youth World Cup and Euro tournaments, and one can see a steady progress being made by female football players in terms of skills and tactics.
Also "steady progress" in the depiction and encouragement of unnatural lifestyles. A large and growing percentage of these top female athletes are not heterosexual. Nothing could better prove the point made in posts above about how female competitive athletics are leading to the inability to reproduce the next generation.
(https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/1158033372/960x0.jpg?fit=scale)
Quote from: Arvinger on November 13, 2019, 10:54:20 AM
Not every woman has a vocation to motherhood and family life, and some of them have a God-given talent in sport -
Really? This sounds like feminist propaganda, rather than a "gift from God."
Quote from: Arvinger on November 13, 2019, 10:54:20 AM
if they can make a living of that, I don't see a problem with that.
But females can't make a living from sports. That's one of the reasons why Title IX is so evil. Men's sports are multi-billion dollar industries. Colleges preparing men to enter those industries is appropriate. Female professional sports are virtually an oxymoron, with a few small exceptions that are just a rounding error in comparison to men's sports.
Female tennis. Ok, that's real.
Female golf. Used to be real, but now in steep decline. Dominated by ugly, muscular Koreans from the country that has the world's lowest birth rate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/sports/hank-haney-racist-sexist.html
"Haney predicted during his show that "a Korean" would win and said that he couldn't name six players on the tour but that he would get "a bunch of them right" if he guessed "Lee" and didn't have to produce any first names."
After Haney made those comments, guess who won the tournament? Someone named "Lee6" -- yes, just as Haney predicted, there were so many Lee's in the tournament that they put a 6 after her name.
WNBA. Socialist league depending entirely on welfare from the NBA. So gay that they won't pass you the ball if you're straight.
https://nypost.com/2017/02/21/retired-wnba-star-i-was-tormented-for-not-being-gay/
Straight WNBA star: Lesbian culture broke my spirit There is a "very, very harmful" culture running throughout the WNBA, she says, which saw her get bullied during her eight-year career because she is heterosexual.
Wiggins, who last played in the league in 2015, said she retired prematurely to leave a league that she estimated — wildly — is 98 percent lesbian, and which is played in such isolation that it weighs on the people on the court.
"It wasn't like my dreams came true in the WNBA. It was quite the opposite," Wiggins said in an extensive San Diego Tribune story published Monday. "... I wanted to play two more seasons of WNBA, but the experience didn't lend itself to my mental state. It was a depressing state in the WNBA. It's not watched. Our value is diminished. It can be quite hard. I didn't like the culture inside the WNBA, and without revealing too much, it was toxic for me. ... My spirit was being broken."
The 30-year-old couldn't take it anymore — being harassed for being straight and fighting for attention in a league that is starved.
"Me being heterosexual and straight, and being vocal in my identity as a straight woman was huge," Wiggins said. "I would say 98 percent of the women in the WNBA are gay women. It was a conformist type of place. There was a whole different set of rules they [the other players] could apply."
Wiggins, who played for the Lynx, Shock, Sparks and Liberty, claimed the issues revolve around the lack of attention the league has garnered as the WNBA struggles with ticket sales and TV ratings. "There was a lot of jealousy and competition, and we're all fighting for crumbs," Wiggins said. "The way I looked, the way I played – those things contributed to the tension.
"People were deliberately trying to hurt me all of the time. I had never been called the B-word so many times in my life than I was in my rookie season. I'd never been thrown to the ground so much. The message was: 'We want you to know we don't like you.' "
Quote from: Arvinger on November 13, 2019, 10:54:20 AM
The number of women who have enough talent to make living of participation in professional sports is a tiny percentage of female population, so I don't think it would affect social or demographic patterns in a Catholic country in any significant way. Majority of women would still be wives and mothers.
This is entirely wrong and demonstrates a misunderstanding of sports. In order to have a professional league of any sorts, you need to have a feeder system with millions of kids. When you see male baseball players or football players on TV, they are the ultimate result of a system that starts with millions of 10-year old boys playing little league baseball and touch football.
In order to have female professional sports leagues, all the girls in the country need to go out and play sports. Not all of them become professional, but all of them are exposed to competitive sports at an impressionable age. That's the goal of our current propaganda campaign, and it is being achieved.
Quote from: Arvinger on November 13, 2019, 10:54:20 AMI watched last two (2015, 2019) Women's World Cup tournaments in football (actual football, which you call soccer, not American football :D), as well as some youth World Cup and Euro tournaments, and one can see a steady progress being made by female football players in terms of skills and tactics.
While I agree with you that there has been some noticeable progress made by female athletes in the last decade, female football as a whole is an irrelevant sport that has been pushed down everyone's throats as a political stance of FIFA.
Still, it's a better compromise than an abhorrent mixed-gender football.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 13, 2019, 12:16:00 PM
Also "steady progress" in the depiction and encouragement of unnatural lifestyles. A large and growing percentage of these top female athletes are not heterosexual. Nothing could better prove the point made in posts above about how female competitive athletics are leading to the inability to reproduce the next generation.
Do you have any statistics demonstrating that the percentage of lesbians among women doing professional sports in general is higher than the average in female population, and if so, that corelation = causation in that case? Even if this were the case, the current celebration of lesbianism and other sexual abominations says more about the culture that permits it rather than the issue of sports itself (just like it is a well-known fact that there are homosexuals among opera singers does not say anyting about the value of opera music itself).
Quote from: MaximilianReally? This sounds like feminist propaganda, rather than a "gift from God."
It is objectively true than not every woman has vocation for motherhood. It is also objectively true that some women have great talent for particular sports. As much as I hate feminism, I don't see anything controversial here.
Quote from: MaximilianBut females can't make a living from sports. That's one of the reasons why Title IX is so evil. Men's sports are multi-billion dollar industries. Colleges preparing men to enter those industries is appropriate. Female professional sports are virtually an oxymoron, with a few small exceptions that are just a rounding error in comparison to men's sports.
Most of them can't, that exactly what I wrote and why I don't see a problem with it - not many women are good enough in sports to make a living of it. As you admit, in tennis women can make a living of it, it is also increasingly happening in football (the best female football leagues in the West are professional, actually the female US football team - current world champions - brings bigger revenue to the United States Soccer Federation than men's team, and female football in general becomes increasingly more popular in Europe), it is also the case in sports like athletics and figure skating. Sure, only the few best will be able to do that for living, but that is the point - let the tiny minority of women who have real talent and ability to make a living of it pursue it, and majority of others will be wives and mothers.
Quote from: MaximilianThis is entirely wrong and demonstrates a misunderstanding of sports. In order to have a professional league of any sorts, you need to have a feeder system with millions of kids. When you see male baseball players or football players on TV, they are the ultimate result of a system that starts with millions of 10-year old boys playing little league baseball and touch football.
In order to have female professional sports leagues, all the girls in the country need to go out and play sports. Not all of them become professional, but all of them are exposed to competitive sports at an impressionable age. That's the goal of our current propaganda campaign, and it is being achieved.
There is no misunderstanding of sports on my part and I am very well-aware of what you wrote above. It is perfectly consistent with what I wrote in my previous post - the point is that only the best, the ones with real talent will make it through the youth systems and achieve professional status. 99% of girls participating in youth competitions, school leagues etc. will not, and will pursue sports only recreationally for certain time in their youth - and recreational sports are fine and doing them is benefitial to one's health. I don't see why in proper Catholic order there should be no place for participation of girls in healthy dose of physical activity and sports under appropriate supervision as part of their proper physical development. The fact that our culture frames the issue in terms of feminism does not negate that - everything can be misused by Godless people.
These last two paragraphs from Max are golden:
In order to have a professional league of any sorts, you need to have a feeder system with millions of kids. When you see male baseball players or football players on TV, they are the ultimate result of a system that starts with millions of 10-year old boys playing little league baseball and touch football.
In order to have female professional sports leagues, all the girls in the country need to go out and play sports. Not all of them become professional, but all of them are exposed to competitive sports at an impressionable age. That's the goal of our current propaganda campaign, and it is being achieved.
It is well known that lesbianism is very high in pro sports:
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2017/02/23/58af128ce2704eca2b8b45ad.html
I've played in high level sports as a younger man, it was true 25 years ago when they were in the closet, it's open season now.
The one thing no one can deny is the dress a woman wears when playing and especially for practice is basically underwear in spandex/lycra. No one in their right mind would allow their daughter to play high level sports without seeing them dress like a prostitute.
You can't make a woman develop the mindset of a man without developing an aggressiveness that destroys a woman. If you don't believe me look at any pro athlete and tell me you would want to marry that person for their personality and as a partner for Our Lord into Heaven.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 13, 2019, 02:22:28 PM
You can't make a woman develop the mindset of a man without developing an aggressiveness that destroys a woman. If you don't believe me look at any pro athlete and tell me you would want to marry that person for their personality and as a partner for Our Lord into Heaven.
The point is that ideally women in professional sports (or any sort of full-time professional career) should make a choice: family or career, because the two can't go together (there is no way she can be a good Catholic wife and mother while constantly travelling around the world for living). If a woman makes such a choice, than the question how suitable she is for marriage or motherhood is sort of moot.
I found a quote from Bishop Sanborn which I mentioned before.
"For women I would say this. Are you going to get married or are you going to pursue a career? It's either/or. Being married and a worldly business career do not go together. If you don't agree with that, again I have nothing further to say.
If you want to pursue some sort of elaborate career, decide you are not going to get married and then do whatever you want as far as career. If you want to become a nuclear scientist or something like that—sure, she can do that. I have no objection that she does that. It's just that I think that to say, "Well, I'm going to be a nuclear scientist and then I'll get married when I'm 35, and then have a child or two, and we'll give the child over to daycare, and my husband and I will work different jobs, or my husband will stay home to cook and clean and I will have my career." Then she has a completely twisted idea of what her role is."
https://www.truerestoration.org/interview-with-bishop-donald-sanborn-on-cultural-issues-march-2009/
So, His Excellency acknowledges that specific women (probably a small minority) can have gifts which they might legitimately pursue as a career for living, while giving up on family and children. In principle I don't see why it should not extend to sports if a woman has that sort of a gift.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 13, 2019, 02:22:28 PM
It is well known that lesbianism is very high in pro sports:
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2017/02/23/58af128ce2704eca2b8b45ad.html
I've played in high level sports as a younger man, it was true 25 years ago when they were in the closet, it's open season now.
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,482447,00.html
Sunday 6 May 2001
The Observer Palm Springs, California, springtime.
There is a golf tournament in town and thousands of women have arrived, but not to watch the sport. Instead they are here for some other sport - one long party, with nudity, girl-on-girl action and go-go dancers simulating sex on stage. Much to the chagrin of the tournament's organiser, the LPGA, and its sponsor Nabisco, this elite event has become a
sapphic debauch writ large, as lesbians from all over America converge in the desert for the Dinah Shore Classic.
Eleven years ago, Sandy Sachs and Robin Gans, owners of the Los Angeles lesbian club Girl Bar, came to the tournament, were bored rigid, and saw an opportunity. They started promoting hotel packages, music clubs and pool parties during the golf weekend, which initially attracted sports fans looking for something to do once the golf was through mid-afternoon, and women who just wanted to be around other women in a convivial atmosphere. Over the past few years, due largely to their efforts, the weekend has turned into a
lesbian bacchanal where any self-respecting US dyke goes to get a tan, get a girlfriend and get laid. Oh, and maybe watch some golf.
The first time they went to Palm Springs, Sachs and Gans - partners in business and in life -
actually watched some golf. 'That was so boring,' says Sachs,
grimacing at the memory. 'We only went because we knew one of the players, who was then the girlfriend of one of my exes. It was exhausting, all that walking, walking, walking in the heat. We looked at each other and said, "Never again".' Instead they devoted themselves to providing more interesting but equally vigorous forms of entertainment and the partying now attracts more lesbians than the golf itself. In fact, the joke has it that some of their clients can spend the entire weekend in blissful ignorance that there is a golf tournament at all.
The LPGA, for its part, appears to be equally unaware. 'Oh there's a party scene here?' says an LPGA spokeswoman. 'We really wouldn't know.' Funny that, because half your golfers are rumoured to show up there. But they needn't worry about being recognised, as Sachs and Gans reckon that only about five per cent of their clientele actually go to the golf. 'Even if a top player walked in -and we've had winners of the Dinah Shore at the Girl Bar - our girls wouldn't recognise them.'
At the golf, played a few miles down the road from Palm Springs at the Mission Hills club in Rancho Mirage, it's soon clear that there are
only two types of fan - local wrinklies (even the radio network calls itself The Oldies Station) - and lesbians. The oldies come in twos, the lesbians in fours and sixes and more. My guestimate is that
60 per cent of the crowd are lesbians.
It's hard to tell the lesbian fans apart from the players, as they are decked out in the same outfits - tailored shorts and polo shirts, with the more butch gals turning their collars up. It's really only a flattering look for the tall and slim, and the fans, like the players, come in all shapes and sizes. No wonder gay men don't play golf.
The older fans and the tournament marshals, many of whom have been volunteering at the tournament since it began, are fiercely loyal to the memory of Dinah Shore, who died in 1994, and are very unhappy that Nabisco took her name off the event's title last year. 'As far as I'm concerned,' said one marshal, 'it has always been the Dinah Shore tournament and always will. That woman is revered in these parts.' I tell him rumour has it that Nabisco took her name off because the tournament had become synonymous with lesbians. 'Dinah Shore wasn't a lesbian!' he says, laughing. 'And it's not just lesbians here, lots of locals come too.'
The LPGA, or more particularly Nabisco, major sponsors of this $1.5million event, would beg to differ. Despite a Nabisco declaration at the media launch of the tournament that they wish 'to make it more relevant' (whatever that may mean), mention the L-word and people suddenly go deaf, or even escort you off the premises. At a previous tournament a journalist was asked to leave the press area when she made the mistake of asking some of the players if they were gay. She was accused of 'bothering' them.
When I asked Nabisco's press representative about lesbians in the sport, the atmosphere got more and more frosty and the answers more and more terse.
Are there lesbians in the LPGA?
'That is not something we would like to comment on.'
Do a lot of lesbians follow the tour?
'No comment.'
Are there...?
'Goodbye.'
In fact, over its 50-year history, the LPGA has always been
associated with gay women, far more than any other sport, which probably has as much to do with its ridiculous closetedness as with the facts - the less you say about it, the more it's assumed. So what about the LPGA's attempts to downplay or even deny there are lesbians in the sport? 'I find it comical, because everyone knows,' says Haines.
Well not everyone. I ask the LPGA spokeswoman about lesbians on the tour. 'We're all about golf and nothing else matters. Are there...' she stutters over the next word... 'gays on the LPGA tour? I don't know. Do I care? No. Do I want to know? No. And the same way with our fans.' She then goes on to trash what fans they do have by saying, apropos of nothing I ask: 'If you're a drunk fan and obnoxious you'll be removed. But more for your behaviour on the course.' More? Surely she means only, and how do we make that leap from lesbian to lout?
Brown is also the liaison officer for the gay and lesbian community, although is herself not a lesbian. 'I don't like golf,' she quips, 'which is how folks know I'm not gay. But because of our long association with Hollywood - in fact many retirees here were in the film, television or music industries - Palm Springs has always been a safe and welcoming environment for gay men and women, whether they are visiting or live here.'
Thankfully, too, not all women's sport is as set as the LPGA on denying where its following lies. The LA Sparks, part of the recently resurgent Women's National Basketball Association, have asked Sandy Sachs and Robin Gans to promote ticket sales at Girl Bar. 'It's groundbreaking and they're a little nervous,' says Sachs. 'But they realise who their market is and are pursuing it, as opposed to saying, "There are no lesbians in basketball".' Gans adds: 'You just have to look at the stands at the Staples Centre [where the Sparks play] to realise that it's
70 per cent lesbians. It's like going to Girl Bar on a Friday night.'
Basketball is following tennis's lead in allowing the public's perceptions of the sport to catch up with reality. Where once the merest hint of dykery would have the media and fans agog because the sport was so closeted, tennis players now talk openly about their sexuality - French player Amélie Mauresmo gave a front-page feature to the respected culture magazine Paris Match last year, posing for pictures with her long-term girlfriend - and the issue has become less interesting, less naughty. In fact only two of the top 20 tennis pros are lesbian - in other words, roughly the national average - and who cares any more?
And the golf? Sweden's Annika Sorenstam wins. Like they care.
Arvinger I think Bishop Sanborn is deeply mistaken and by a country mile. Unless you are going to dedicate your life as a single person to God you will struggle being a human with a fallen nature. That goes for men and especially for women who get a career because time is more compounded to start a family life with a definite stopping point.
Let's use the example of a female nuclear scientist as that's his example. Will she crave companionship? Will she desire kids someday? Is she going to date men while trying to focus on her career?
If "yes" the odds of her staying chaste in a dating environment are slim. But let's go further.
What if she wants kids at around 30-35 after she sees the emptiness that a career brings. How many good guys will want to marry a career girl? Few if any.
Unless you're under 30 and have false romantic beliefs about life you realize how easy it is to lose your way, that you aren't as strong as you think and the lack of foresight is a day late and a dollar short for most people. And for a woman that's even worse as she has a timer to have her own family and the ticking sound gets mighty loud.
Will this nuclear scientist who may discover she wants a family be mentally stable to raise one without feeling she's wasting her life? As much as she feels the emptiness of her job she also feels the weight of being important now that she's gone down that road. It takes a special person to walk away from that without constant regret.
Even if you don't feel called to get married today human nature gets it's way. Loneliness is a real problem and intimacy is a requirement in life. Either we are intimate with the Divine through the spirit or intimate in the flesh with people. Nature abhors a vacuum and no career will solve that.
By "sports" are we talking about professional sports or playing sports for recreation? It's hard to see why anybody should get payed to play a game without feeling shame or embarrassment. Females are intended to be at home with children and are generally happier when they are, this most of us can agree on.
The idea that a girl is going to start developing male traits and male virtues because she's playing a recreational sport with other girls seems to be a stretch.
What a girls gets out of playing a sport will not be the same as what a boy does.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 13, 2019, 02:22:28 PM
It is well known that lesbianism is very high in pro sports:
https://www.marca.com/en/more-sports/2017/02/23/58af128ce2704eca2b8b45ad.html
I've played in high level sports as a younger man, it was true 25 years ago when they were in the closet, it's open season now.
The one thing no one can deny is the dress a woman wears when playing and especially for practice is basically underwear in spandex/lycra. No one in their right mind would allow their daughter to play high level sports without seeing them dress like a prostitute.
You can't make a woman develop the mindset of a man without developing an aggressiveness that destroys a woman. If you don't believe me look at any pro athlete and tell me you would want to marry that person for their personality and as a partner for Our Lord into Heaven.
I was watching the World Athletic Championships a couple of weeks ago ( at least I think it was) just for laughs when the walking race was on. Looking at human ducks waggling so fast was better than any comedy. But it really annoyed me that the female athletes wear knickers and a bra top while competing but the men wear loose shorts and vest top......so it can't be for aerodynamics or some other bs reason.
And I don't need a doctorate research team to spot the dick van dykes in female sport.....its a collection of all that's ugly
Quote from: Maximilian on November 13, 2019, 09:44:31 AM
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 13, 2019, 04:06:04 AM
The following are some excerpts from what I think is an excellent book: What is True Education by Fr Edward Leen (C.S.Sp. M.A., D.D. Litt), written in 1943, the year before he died.
Thanks for posting the excellent excerpt and also for the information re Fr. Edward Leen whom I was not previously aware of.
Do you know whether his books are still available in Ireland?
Yes, it is an excellent read. Hardback editions are only available from second-hand sources, as far as I am aware, and can vary significantly in price. I had a hardback edition years ago but have either misplaced it or given it away. I bought the paperback edition online from here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/father-edward-leen/what-is-true-education/paperback/product-6173135.html.
I have read quite a few of his books and he is one of my favourite authors. The paperback reprint of
Why the Cross I also purchased online, but it too was some time ago and I can't quite remember where.
Everything has to have a "purpose" with Stoics and their spiritual successors. Nothing can ever be just for the enjoyment of the thing itself. What's the purpose of a purpose again?
Quote from: dellery on November 13, 2019, 10:19:24 PM
By "sports" are we talking about professional sports or playing sports for recreation? It's hard to see why anybody should get payed to play a game without feeling shame or embarrassment. Females are intended to be at home with children and are generally happier when they are, this most of us can agree on.
The idea that a girl is going to start developing male traits and male virtues because she's playing a recreational sport with other girls seems to be a stretch.
What a girls gets out of playing a sport will not be the same as what a boy does.
Yes, Fr Leen makes a distinction when it comes to recreational games for girls:
Quote
A girl should aim, in play only at the acquisition of that strength and grace which becomes a woman. Games should be indulged in by her not for the fierce joy of overcoming a rival, but for the proper and harmonious development of her physique as woman.
Quote from: Arvinger on November 13, 2019, 02:58:41 PM
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 13, 2019, 02:22:28 PM
You can't make a woman develop the mindset of a man without developing an aggressiveness that destroys a woman. If you don't believe me look at any pro athlete and tell me you would want to marry that person for their personality and as a partner for Our Lord into Heaven.
The point is that ideally women in professional sports (or any sort of full-time professional career) should make a choice: family or career, because the two can't go together (there is no way she can be a good Catholic wife and mother while constantly travelling around the world for living). If a woman makes such a choice, than the question how suitable she is for marriage or motherhood is sort of moot.
I found a quote from Bishop Sanborn which I mentioned before.
"For women I would say this. Are you going to get married or are you going to pursue a career? It's either/or. Being married and a worldly business career do not go together. If you don't agree with that, again I have nothing further to say. If you want to pursue some sort of elaborate career, decide you are not going to get married and then do whatever you want as far as career. If you want to become a nuclear scientist or something like that—sure, she can do that. I have no objection that she does that. It's just that I think that to say, "Well, I'm going to be a nuclear scientist and then I'll get married when I'm 35, and then have a child or two, and we'll give the child over to daycare, and my husband and I will work different jobs, or my husband will stay home to cook and clean and I will have my career." Then she has a completely twisted idea of what her role is."
https://www.truerestoration.org/interview-with-bishop-donald-sanborn-on-cultural-issues-march-2009/
So, His Excellency acknowledges that specific women (probably a small minority) can have gifts which they might legitimately pursue as a career for living, while giving up on family and children. In principle I don't see why it should not extend to sports if a woman has that sort of a gift.
I have two concerns with this argument. First of all, in choosing a career, sportswomen (and men) only have a short career life to factor into their overall life-plan. By early or mid-30s most are past their prime and younger, stronger, fitter and faster versions have replaced them. Consequently, they have another lifetime or more (35 years +) to plan for, so it is not the same as a woman who has chosen a profession/career, which can sustain her throughout her working life. Of course
some may not need to work, if they have been successful enough to fund the rest of their lives. But they do have to do something with the rest of their lives... Marriage may be one option - if they can find a suitable choice who has not been married before. But they have certainly reduced their options in this area.
Secondly, I believe Bp Sanborn and any of the traditional clergy would oppose a sports career for women on the issue of modesty alone, let alone any other potentially valid reason. I've seen photos of women footballers in action shots that I would not permit a child or young man under my control to view. And to equate Bp Sanborn's example of a woman who chooses nuclear science as a career with one who chooses a sports career, in my view, is an Olympian leap in itself. I know he says: "then do whatever you want as a career", but it goes without saying that would not include anything that involves mortal sin.
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 14, 2019, 06:06:15 AM
Quote from: dellery on November 13, 2019, 10:19:24 PM
By "sports" are we talking about professional sports or playing sports for recreation? It's hard to see why anybody should get payed to play a game without feeling shame or embarrassment. Females are intended to be at home with children and are generally happier when they are, this most of us can agree on.
The idea that a girl is going to start developing male traits and male virtues because she's playing a recreational sport with other girls seems to be a stretch.
What a girls gets out of playing a sport will not be the same as what a boy does.
Yes, Fr Leen makes a distinction when it comes to recreational games for girls:
Quote
A girl should aim, in play only at the acquisition of that strength and grace which becomes a woman. Games should be indulged in by her not for the fierce joy of overcoming a rival, but for the proper and harmonious development of her physique as woman.
Girls don't need to try not to indulge in the "fierce joy of overcoming a rival" because these are not feminine sentiments. Masculine behavior can indeed be taught to girls, but left on their own without the stimuli of contemporary sports-cucks, they generally use sports as a way to build teamwork, cohesion, emotional stability, and the establishment of a pecking order. Females are naturally highly competitive with other females and are often ruthless with one another, sports can actually dampen the female's hostility toward her peers by exposure to healthy competition, shared defeat, and personal failure.
Competition magnifies and strengthens certain intangible traits, but they don't always have to be masculine. If a girl is playing sports then the traits that will be amplified will be feminine.
I haven't read this thread, so I am not commenting on anything in it, except to add a fact, with my speculation as to what caused it. My perception is that this may be relevant. If it isn't, please ignore.
Fact. Worldwide the percentage of cosmologists who are women is something like 15%, maybe 17%. In the old Protestant countries it is lower. In the Catholic countries it is much higher, including in Spain, and it is approaching 40% in Argentina.
What would explain this? It is the opposite of what one who holds a narrow view of Tradition might expect.
I suggest that what we Anglosphere people think of as "Victorian" ideas are crystallised, brittle, caricatures of Christian philosophy. Such a position is unable to deal with new realities and must, if it isn't to collapse, hold fast to fixed traditions - not traditions of the faith, which are principles, but traditions of the application of principles to concrete situations, applications which cannot be modified precisely because the underlying principles have been lost. Being dead, Protestantism hasn't the suppleness and subtlety of the living faith, the living vine, which always receives the living and life-giving sap from the trunk.
Catholics on the other hand, address new situations by applying age-old principles, and therefore don't have an issue with a female doctor, for example. The first such graduate was Italian, actually, hundreds of years before the British were shocked to see women wanting tertiary education...
My point isn't to justify the contraceptive career hag, but to point out that if a woman isn't married or clearly about to be, there is no moral problem in her studying for a career. I have six daughters, most of them adults, so I am aware of this situation in the concrete. We ought to be careful that we do not create a blind alley for our ladies, by pretending that we live in a different era than we actually have been chosen by Providence to live our faith in.
Now, we may think it imprudent to spend large sums on education that may not be of use to a future mother. It is certainly imprudent not to equip an adult to earn a good living. There are considerations of many kinds each way. But it isn't a sin to get an education, nor is it intrinsically unladylike, and for many it is plainly necessary.
Professional sport for women is usually horrible and immodest, but there are exceptions, such as some horse riding events. Catholics will know how to apply the eternal principles so mercifully revealed to us to each possibility as it presents itself.
In the Immaculate,
Naz.
Transgender is worse. Although the history of feminism reminds me of this famous Grimms fairy tale.
The Fisherman and His Wife - Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Once upon a time there were a fisherman and his wife who lived together in a filthy shack near the sea. Every day the fisherman went out fishing, and he fished, and he fished. Once he was sitting there fishing and looking into the clear water, and he sat, and he sat. Then his hook went to the bottom, deep down, and when he pulled it out, he had caught a large flounder.
Then the flounder said to him, "Listen, fisherman, I beg you to let me live. I am not an ordinary flounder, but an enchanted prince. How will it help you to kill me? I would not taste good to you. Put me back into the water, and let me swim."
"Well," said the man, "there's no need to say more. I can certainly let a fish swim away who knows how to talk."
With that he put it back into the clear water, and the flounder disappeared to the bottom, leaving a long trail of blood behind him.
Then the fisherman got up and went home to his wife in the filthy shack.
"Husband," said the woman, "didn't you catch anything today?"
"No," said the man. "I caught a flounder, but he told me that he was an enchanted prince, so I let him swim away."
"Didn't you ask for anything first?" said the woman.
"No," said the man. "What should I have asked for?"
"Oh," said the woman. "It is terrible living in this shack. It stinks and is filthy. You should have asked for a little cottage for us. Go back and call him. Tell him that we want to have a little cottage. He will surely give it to us."
"Oh," said the man. "Why should I go back there?"
"Look," said the woman, "you did catch him, and then you let him swim away. He will surely do this for us. Go right now."
The man did not want to go, but neither did he want to oppose his wife, so he went back to the sea.
When he arrived there it was no longer clear, but yellow and green. He stood there and said:
Mandje! Mandje! Timpe Te!
Flounder, flounder, in the sea!
My wife, my wife Ilsebill,
Wants not, wants not, what I will
The flounder swam up and said, "What does she want then?" ...
for more see: https://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm019.html
Quote from: dellery on November 14, 2019, 06:35:08 AM
Females are naturally highly competitive with other females and are often ruthless with one another.....
At last someone is prepared to acknowledge reality.
But you forgot to add spiteful and vicious to the list of not so pleasant female traits.
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
Where have all those strong Catholic women gone, the one's you wouldn't dare mess with. Criticise their husbands and you take your life into your hands. But don't imagine for one minute that they bore any resemblance to the delicate flowers being idealised here.
Quote from: dellery on November 13, 2019, 10:19:24 PM
The idea that a girl is going to start developing male traits and male virtues because she's playing a recreational sport with other girls seems to be a stretch.
No, not a stretch at all. I see it all around. Teenage girls who tend to be:
1. Short
2. Muscular, especially in the thighs
3. Mannish
This is all due to exposure to testosterone through competitive athletics. Testosterone promotes muscle growth but stunts height because the body converts testosterone into estrogen which closes the growth plates.
These girls are going through the same growth trajectory as Italian boys who typically would mature faster, look like grown men in 8th grade, but then never grow any taller.
One tends to associate this type of girl with "softball players." This was a meme around the time that Elena Kagan was being appointed to the US Supreme Court.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2010/05/softball-question-026935
A spokeswoman for the Wall Street Journal said today its cover art was not intended as innuendo about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's sexual orientation after the paper's front-page use of an image of Kagan playing softball provoked a mixture of irritation and amusement from gay and lesbian advocates.
"It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It's just too easy a punch line," said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consultant. "The question from a journalistic perspective is whether it's a descriptive representation of who she might be as a judge. Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?"
The vintage of the image, released by the University of Chicago, was a particular source of questions in the context of persistent, public chatter about the nominee's sexual orientation. This isn't exactly a whispering campaign, as the question -- no longer particularly scandalous -- has made it to the Washington Post and widely-read websites. White House officials have denied, on background, that Kagan is a lesbian.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fheebmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Felena-300x291.jpg&hash=47b85f94c702cf63b83ac91dd7a4dd3a52cb24fd)
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2019, 01:32:07 AM
the female athletes wear knickers and a bra top while competing but the men wear loose shorts and vest top......so it can't be for aerodynamics or some other bs reason.
This has universally been the case for a while now. Go to any beach or pool and you will see men with loose, baggy bathing trunks down to their knees, while the girls are all competing to see who can be the most naked. Same with other sports, as you point out.
Here's men's beach volleyball at the Olympics (I can't post the equivalent photo for the women since it's NSFW):
(https://estaticos.efe.com/efecom/recursos2/imagen.aspx?lVW2oAh2vjNaECNzLr0TQvAGpHzEPwA5Q4TncnkXVSTX-P-2bAoG0sxzXPZPAk5l-P-2fU5UEd3OAEdRhvO8uWrfiyUJ3w-P-3d-P-3d)
Quote from: diaduit on November 14, 2019, 01:32:07 AM
And I don't need a doctorate research team to spot the dick van dykes in female sport.....its a collection of all that's ugly
Yes, ugly is the word. Going back to the eighties, I've never found these Olympic women attractive. It's so unfeminine. There's something gay about the whole project, besides the individual examples.
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/rapinoesit.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
Quote from: dellery on November 14, 2019, 06:35:08 AM
If a girl is playing sports then the traits that will be amplified will be feminine.
Stated without a shred of evidence in the face of an overwhelming mountain of data surrounding us.
Feminine traits amplified?
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:300x300/70/149370-050-F2F4BEE5/Serena-Williams-US-Open-2004.jpg)
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
So traditional Catholic girls can't cook? Really, this is ridiculous.
You should have informed St. Peter of your concerns before he advised women to have a "meek and quiet spirit."
Quote from: The Curt Jester on November 12, 2019, 08:21:21 AM
I find sports good when they are used means of instilling discipline and teamwork. Unfortunately, that is no longer the focus for most, it seems. The number of days a week that these kids (and their parents) are engaged in sports activities, it is insane. They do it to the detriment of their own family time, actual work, and studies. We definitely have a sports-first mentality.
At my school:
1. A child missed mandatory school events because his coach told him that sports were more important that school. Apparently his parents agreed.
To be honest most of what goes on at school is worthless....
Quote from: Maximilian on November 14, 2019, 08:38:59 AM
Quote from: dellery on November 14, 2019, 06:35:08 AM
If a girl is playing sports then the traits that will be amplified will be feminine.
Stated without a shred of evidence in the face of an overwhelming mountain of data surrounding us.
Feminine traits amplified?
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:300x300/70/149370-050-F2F4BEE5/Serena-Williams-US-Open-2004.jpg)
I'm calling roids on Serena though.
Quote from: Nazianzen on November 14, 2019, 06:57:00 AM
What would explain this? It is the opposite of what one who holds a narrow view of Tradition might expect....
I suggest that what we Anglosphere people think of as "Victorian" ideas are crystallised, brittle, caricatures of Christian philosophy....
Catholics on the other hand, address new situations by applying age-old principles, and therefore don't have an issue with a female doctor, for example...
We ought to be careful that we do not create a blind alley for our ladies, by pretending that we live in a different era than we actually have been chosen by Providence to live our faith in.
But it isn't a sin to get an education, nor is it intrinsically unladylike, and for many it is plainly necessary.
I truncated your ideas to address the main ones.
You started with the argument of cosmologists and moved to the exigencies of our time saying our view of tradition isn't traditional because of women who perform certain tasks. No doubt there were female doctors, philosophers, etc.. through the growth of Catholic universities.
Still we can't use this as an argument of tradition. Because something is merely in the past doesn't make it traditional. If it broke with a previous norms you can't sprinkle time over it and pull the rabbit out and call it tradition. There is not a tradition of Catholic women who had careers absent family life that were pious. Sure there is the Aunt Betty type who never found the right guy and worked a job, but most career women are bitter and nasty with resentment. The phenomenon of the 40 yr old single woman who goes crazy to have a baby is proof of this fact.
Read the popes on this issue, the saints. Rerum Novarum comes to mind.
The idea of a woman in university could be considered from a Catholic perspective of an alma mater who truly cares for the soul could be granted.. There was a belief in the village to raise a child. The growth of career women which stemmed from this has been proven to be a disaster. Large cities historically were known not to be centers of piety, but impurity.
90% of world worked an agrarian lifestyle just 110 years ago. Obviously career women were anomalies.
There was a belief in practicing Christianity about purity. One can read it with St. Alphonsus, St. John Vianney, et al. but suffice it to say it is not considered moral for women and men to hang out separately and singularly without chaperones because of lust. This is absolutely true today and it is one of the reasons why so many people leave the faith, is through impurity. This would be true at a university and certainly on the job. The boundaries of female schools and female professions is not what I oppose. What I oppose is mixing society without the standard rules to protect chastity.
Your statement "We ought to be careful ... pretending that we live in a different era than we actually have been chosen by Providence to live our faith in." The truth is we do live in a different era. Most men have seen pornography before the age of 12 through smart phones, promiscuity is not what it was for my grandparents, and these are realities which transcend the career path we pick.
The purity of our youth should take precedent. The breaking of Catholic norms to safeguard purity should be our primary objective when looking to find paths for our children and even ourselves. For every story of a child who left the faith because of strictness I could find 1,000 more of allowing worldliness and the removal of barriers that safeguard purity.
I just don't believe we can upend social norms and barriers of purity without causing the problems we face today. I'm not opposed to a woman becoming a teacher, nurse, etc. what I'm opposed is if she works at a public school or hospital and begins to have modern dating practices. I'm against the break-up of families for better financial opportunity, and I'm certainly opposed to the notion of a career woman who will later regret it and then feels trapped.
While you might say you agree with that I don't know how it's possible to separate your ideas from boundaries of purity. I'm open to your ideas.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 14, 2019, 08:48:38 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
So traditional Catholic girls can't cook? Really, this is ridiculous.
You should have informed St. Peter of your concerns before he advised women to have a "meek and quiet spirit."
What? When did I refer to trad Catholic girls and their cooking abilities?
I'm questioning whether the delicate flower type of woman being idealised so much on this thread is capable of enduring the rigours of running a household. And I'm wondering if it is a fantasy which will only disappoint young men when they discover that reality does not always match up these ideals.
And why is having a "meek and quiet spirit" not compatible with being strong in one's traditional role?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 11:26:43 AM
And why is having a "meek and quiet spirit" not compatible with being strong in one's traditional role?
You were the one who created that dichotomy:
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 11:26:43 AM
Where have all those strong Catholic women gone, the one's you wouldn't dare mess with. Criticise their husbands and you take your life into your hands. But don't imagine for one minute that they bore any resemblance to the delicate flowers being idealised here.
Clearly the ideal proposed by you cannot be described as "meek and quiet," just the opposite
Quote from: Nazianzen on November 14, 2019, 06:57:00 AMFact. Worldwide the percentage of cosmologists who are women is something like 15%, maybe 17%. In the old Protestant countries it is lower. In the Catholic countries it is much higher, including in Spain, and it is approaching 40% in Argentina.
It should also bear mentioning that the Catholic countries have been hotbeds of Marxism and anticlericalism.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 13, 2019, 07:01:17 PM
Arvinger I think Bishop Sanborn is deeply mistaken and by a country mile. Unless you are going to dedicate your life as a single person to God you will struggle being a human with a fallen nature. That goes for men and especially for women who get a career because time is more compounded to start a family life with a definite stopping point.
Every path of life is difficult and we always struggle with fallen human nature. Marriage and family do not solve that problem and are a difficult vocation in themselves - they bring sets of problems and difficulties which unmarried people do not face. Also, it is a vocation which not everyone has.
Quote from: bigbadtradLet's use the example of a female nuclear scientist as that's his example. Will she crave companionship? Will she desire kids someday? Is she going to date men while trying to focus on her career?
If "yes" the odds of her staying chaste in a dating environment are slim. But let's go further.
What if she wants kids at around 30-35 after she sees the emptiness that a career brings. How many good guys will want to marry a career girl? Few if any.
Unless you're under 30 and have false romantic beliefs about life you realize how easy it is to lose your way, that you aren't as strong as you think and the lack of foresight is a day late and a dollar short for most people. And for a woman that's even worse as she has a timer to have her own family and the ticking sound gets mighty loud.
Will this nuclear scientist who may discover she wants a family be mentally stable to raise one without feeling she's wasting her life? As much as she feels the emptiness of her job she also feels the weight of being important now that she's gone down that road. It takes a special person to walk away from that without constant regret.
Even if you don't feel called to get married today human nature gets it's way. Loneliness is a real problem and intimacy is a requirement in life. Either we are intimate with the Divine through the spirit or intimate in the flesh with people. Nature abhors a vacuum and no career will solve that.
What you wrote carries a lot of implicit assumptions which might or might not be true for specific people.
First, you seem to automatically assume that every woman has a vocation for marriage and motherhood, but that is not the case - most do, but some don't. If fact, there are some woman who are utterly unsuitable for motherhood for psychological reasons, have low sex drive (on average female sex drive is much lower than male) and do not desire sexual relationship (essential element of marriage) all that much, etc.
Second, you assume that a career will necessarily be something that she will realize "is empty" and will leave her disappointed. There are many people who use their God-given artistic/scientific/sport talents for various sorts of occupation and significantly contribute to society without being married or having a religious vocation, their occupations being far from "empty".
Third, having a scientific/sports/artistic career and being in close relationship with God are not mutually exclusive - a woman does not have to have a religious vocation or be a mother in order to have a rich spiritual life and give witness to Christ, including in her professional environment. Is it easy? No. Possible? Yes.
Fourth, imagine we are living in a Catholic country where people follow their vocations. I'm not sure what percentage of men have religious vocation, but lets say 5-10% do. Thus, 5-10% of women will necessarily remain without a husband. Sure, some of them might go to monasteries, but failure to find a husband does not in itself mean that a woman has a religious vocation - monastery should not be a place to dump those who failed to find a partner without regard to whether they have a religious vocation or not. Thus, if these women who are left out have God-given talents allowing them to make a living and has enough discipline to follow that path, all the better for them.
Sure, cases of women remaining unmarried and leading a life with professional career which pleases God will be rare and it is surely a difficult path, but then women with enough talent and dedication to have a sport/scientific/artistic career are rare as well. This is a path for tiny minority of women (majority will always have vocation for marriage and motherhood), and there is no reason it should not exist in proper Catholic social order. Thus, I think Biship Sanborn is right about that.
Arvinger you misunderstood me. No one has a calling to a job/career.
I don't care if a woman remain single, but if she is single and has not devoted her life to God she will desire intimacy. If she isn't dedicated to a life to God and she craves intimacy and if it's not put in the proper context of life she will cause harm to herself, her morality, and her modesty.
There were always circumstances where women were single, especially after war, where they had to get jobs and try to provide for her family. The same is true at any time in history where a woman couldn't find a husband for whatever reason. The difference was a woman knew she didn't have a vocation to a career. No one has a calling to a job.
Women in the work force has been decidedly negative for single-family income. Men have to work harder to make the same income if both sexes work.
To your other point that the increase in the arts/sports/scientific does not affect their relationship with God I would only ask for you to look at the world today, even with trads. Girls more involved with those things seem to get married later and have higher dissatisfaction in married life, and think of marriage early as "settling". In the Novus Ordo girls who go down that direction play in public schools, dress immodestly, hardly ever keep the faith, and grow in masculine traits.
The desire to be "successful" from a worldly perspective has done enormous damage to our minds, that includes me. To not see the rot infesting the minds of young women is something I cannot understand from your perspective so I don't know how to continue.
Strangely I've had conversations with humble women who were corporate execs, doctors, etc. and they all admitted what I knew imperfectly. They admitted how they postponed getting married, stopping have more kids, and it was only when they embraced their state in life as a mother they realized how vain they were. Many of my beliefs are shaped by such conversations.
I met a girl from my confirmation class 10 years later. I met her mother and she said she would love to talk to me. She was a marine biologist and she told me her life was just gone downhill and she doesn't know how she could have a stable relationship. I remember her crying well. She left the faith and sadly I can't think of 1 girl in my confirmation class who kept their faith.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 14, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
Arvinger you misunderstood me. No one has a calling to a job/career.
Of course, it is not a vocation, but that does not mean it is not a legitimate option for living.
Quote from: bigbadtradI don't care if a woman remain single, but if she is single and has not devoted her life to God she will desire intimacy. If she isn't dedicated to a life to God and she craves intimacy and if it's not put in the proper context of life she will cause harm to herself, her morality, and her modesty.
Depends what you mean by "dedicating life to God" - if you mean a religious vocation, not every woman who remains single has it. But you can live a Godly life while having a career, these are not mutually exclusive. Futhermore, one could use exactly the same argument about men who remain single and do not have a religious vocation, yet I hardly see anyone in the Trad world doing that. We are not animals, we can control our instintcs and discipline ourselves.
Quote from: bigbadtradThere were always circumstances where women were single, especially after war, where they had to get jobs and try to provide for her family. The same is true at any time in history where a woman couldn't find a husband for whatever reason. The difference was a woman knew she didn't have a vocation to a career. No one has a calling to a job.
Agreed, I never claimed it is any sort of vocation.
Quote from: bigbadtradWomen in the work force has been decidedly negative for single-family income. Men have to work harder to make the same income if both sexes work.
You are comparing apples and oranges now. I'm talking about tiny minority of women who have talents and gifts in areas of art, science and sports, and who can legitimately follow that if they give up on marriage. You talk about women entering the workforce en masse, often doing meaningless paper-pushing jobs - that is entirely different issue and was indeed catastrophic for the job market and wages, I fully agree. But that is not what I'm talking about. Few female artists, athletes and scientists (a tiny percentage of women who are in the workforce) who do that for living are not negative for single-family income and are a different thing than women entering workforce en masse.
Quote from: bigbadtradTo your other point that the increase in the arts/sports/scientific does not affect their relationship with God I would only ask for you to look at the world today, even with trads. Girls more involved with those things seem to get married later and have higher dissatisfaction in married life, and think of marriage early as "settling". In the Novus Ordo girls who go down that direction play in public schools, dress immodestly, hardly ever keep the faith, and grow in masculine traits.
You misrepresent what I wrote. I said that it
does not have to affect their relationship with God, if they do it in a right way, in a Catholic framework. Most of them don't, and don't even have the faith to begin with (as with majority of the Novus Ordo youth who go through the motions of being Catholic but never take Catholicism seriously and flee the Church after Confirmation - not because of involvment in sports or art, but because of lack of faith). That does not mean that it is impossible to have a career and maintain a relationship with God. I don't see a reason why a female (or male, for that matter) nuclear scientist cannot be a devout Catholic and lead a disciplined single life, as bishop Sanborn suggested.
Quote from: bigbadtradThe desire to be "successful" from a worldly perspective has done enormous damage to our minds, that includes me. To not see the rot infesting the minds of young women is something I cannot understand from your perspective so I don't know how to continue.
Being a Catholic does not mean that one should not strive to achieve excellence in a specific field, be that art, science or sports. Great wealth of art, culture (indlucing Catholic art and culture) and scientific advances which have been made throughout history would have been impossible without that strive. Again, few have enough talent and discipline for that, which is why I emphasize I'm talking about this as a path for tiny minority of women, while majority should still be wives and mothers.
Quote from: bigbadtradStrangely I've had conversations with humble women who were corporate execs, doctors, etc. and they all admitted what I knew imperfectly. They admitted how they postponed getting married, stopping have more kids, and it was only when they embraced their state in life as a mother they realized how vain they were. Many of my beliefs are shaped by such conversations.
It means that these specific women made a wrong decision and chose a path which was wrong for them. Does not mean it will be wrong for others who have different circumstances, personalities, talents, etc.
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 14, 2019, 06:18:33 AM
I have two concerns with this argument. First of all, in choosing a career, sportswomen (and men) only have a short career life to factor into their overall life-plan. By early or mid-30s most are past their prime and younger, stronger, fitter and faster versions have replaced them. Consequently, they have another lifetime or more (35 years +) to plan for, so it is not the same as a woman who has chosen a profession/career, which can sustain her throughout her working life. Of course some may not need to work, if they have been successful enough to fund the rest of their lives. But they do have to do something with the rest of their lives... Marriage may be one option - if they can find a suitable choice who has not been married before. But they have certainly reduced their options in this area.
Sure, but that is a problem everyone, man or woman, faces when deciding for a career in professional sports. This type of career is short and one has to actively prepare for a new life after it ends - one has to be aware of that and make proper preparations and save enough money during the career.
Quote from: AeternusSecondly, I believe Bp Sanborn and any of the traditional clergy would oppose a sports career for women on the issue of modesty alone, let alone any other potentially valid reason. I've seen photos of women footballers in action shots that I would not permit a child or young man under my control to view. And to equate Bp Sanborn's example of a woman who chooses nuclear science as a career with one who chooses a sports career, in my view, is an Olympian leap in itself. I know he says: "then do whatever you want as a career", but it goes without saying that would not include anything that involves mortal sin.
But that assumes that immodesty and other mortal sins are inherent to professional sports, which they are not. In a proper Catholic order the same sports could be practiced with consideration of proper standards of modesty in dressing. Current immodesty in many sports says more about modern society and its mores than sport itself.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
Where have all those strong Catholic women gone, the one's you wouldn't dare mess with. Criticise their husbands and you take your life into your hands. But don't imagine for one minute that they bore any resemblance to the delicate flowers being idealised here.
It's just the opposite in reality. These strong, masculine women are actually quite easy to manipulate, while a submissive, feminine woman is not.
A dominant woman thinks she is so smart and capable and can handle everything on her own, but so often she turns out to be mistaken.
A submissive woman, on the other hand, can handle any difficult situation with a simple, "My husband says so."
And speaking of family kitchens, I know a lovely, shy, modest, retiring old lady who spends all day cooking, cleaning, and serving others while being surrounded by dominant personalities, yet all she needs to do is water her eyes and there are ten men ready to jump to her defense.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 14, 2019, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
Where have all those strong Catholic women gone, the one's you wouldn't dare mess with. Criticise their husbands and you take your life into your hands. But don't imagine for one minute that they bore any resemblance to the delicate flowers being idealised here.
It's just the opposite in reality. These strong, masculine women are actually quite easy to manipulate, while a submissive, feminine woman is not.
A dominant woman thinks she is so smart and capable and can handle everything on her own, but so often she turns out to be mistaken.
A submissive woman, on the other hand, can handle any difficult situation with a simple, "My husband says so."
And speaking of family kitchens, I know a lovely, shy, modest, retiring old lady who spends all day cooking, cleaning, and serving others while being surrounded by dominant personalities, yet all she needs to do is water her eyes and there are ten men ready to jump to her defense.
The strong Catholic women I remember were not masculine or dominant. They were strong in their traditional roles.
One way of looking at the behaviour of your lovely, shy, modest old lady friend is that she appears submissive but is in fact quite manipulative, having learned to "water her eyes" to get what she wants. Is that the kind of feminine behaviour you advocate?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 07:15:09 PMOne way of looking at the behaviour of your lovely, shy, modest old lady friend is that she appears submissive but is in fact quite manipulative, having learned to "water her eyes" to get what she wants. Is that the kind of feminine behaviour you advocate?
Is there any other?
It's a millennia-old art of survival and social negotiation. Being the fair sex, women can't afford to assert their wills the same way men do.
Quote from: Arvinger on November 14, 2019, 03:54:30 PM
You are comparing apples and oranges now. I'm talking about tiny minority of women who have talents and gifts in areas of art, science and sports, and who can legitimately follow that if they give up on marriage.
And my point is they rarely, if ever, give up on marriage. They romantically believe they will feel fulfilled by a career and after repeated bad decisions they severely damage their future. My point has been the same: if they dedicated their lives to God in chastity that's one thing, but outside of that it's severely immature to think such a person will turn out fine. The experiment has been tried, it's been an abject failure. To even mention sports is not sane as reality dictates women in sports are literally a hotbed of immorality and has profound psychological implications. To be clear I'm not talking about playing tennis with friends or family, or even in a local league.
QuoteYou misrepresent what I wrote. I said that it does not have to affect their relationship with God, if they do it in a right way, in a Catholic framework.
Sure and that would also be true of a plane with the engines failing: it doesn't have to crash and kill everyone, but reality is stacked against you. Correlation is not causation, but to deny correlation is an act of denying reality. Catholic chaperones aren't necessary because couples don't have to commit acts of lust, but to forsake that is a denial of history and teachings of the saints with perilous consequences.
Your argument boils done to if someone has the proclivity and means to live a career as a woman in the world and forsake marriage what's the big deal if if there is no mandatory down-side. Its' the same argument against chaperones: times have changed, they don't have to be unchaste, and they are intelligent and pious. Yet it's worse than no chaperones, it's literally having your daughter in the midst of the polished wolves who would love to destroy your purity, estranged from family life, and somehow it can work because there is no moral imperative either way.
My counter-point is I wouldn't tell anyone to ride an airliner in which you knew the engines would die mid-flight and hope he could glide to a runway safely.
Life is really a matter of odds. If I knew 70% of doctors wanted to leave the profession, have massive depression, and job dissatisfaction than you'd be crazy to do so. Wouldn't make a difference if they were male or female. The same is true recommending women to live in a world of men without the proper boundries of modesty and propriety. I don't see this is arguable. We don't have the female scientist studying at a Catholic university with nuns and priests and other young women to bolster them. Instead they are lambs to the slaughter.
To paraphrase St. John Chrysostum a father wouldn't spend those precious years of his daughter's life to sacrifice her modesty to the world. A father walks his daughter down the isle as a symbol of passing the baton and as a representative of the purity and dignity of the family name. The idea a woman can live in the jungle and do ahistorical things and turn out alright is naive at best.
We're talking about walking into the jungle and hoping the deeper she goes it will all be fine as long as they pray their Rosary.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 14, 2019, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
Where have all those strong Catholic women gone, the one's you wouldn't dare mess with. Criticise their husbands and you take your life into your hands. But don't imagine for one minute that they bore any resemblance to the delicate flowers being idealised here.
It's just the opposite in reality. These strong, masculine women are actually quite easy to manipulate, while a submissive, feminine woman is not.
A dominant woman thinks she is so smart and capable and can handle everything on her own, but so often she turns out to be mistaken.
A submissive woman, on the other hand, can handle any difficult situation with a simple, "My husband says so."
And speaking of family kitchens, I know a lovely, shy, modest, retiring old lady who spends all day cooking, cleaning, and serving others while being surrounded by dominant personalities, yet all she needs to do is water her eyes and there are ten men ready to jump to her defense.
The strong Catholic women I remember were not masculine or dominant. They were strong in their traditional roles.
One way of looking at the behaviour of your lovely, shy, modest old lady friend is that she appears submissive but is in fact quite manipulative, having learned to "water her eyes" to get what she wants. Is that the kind of feminine behaviour you advocate?
I absolutely advocate for the kind of feminine woman she is.
One way of looking at people- men and women alike- who are greatly our superior is to attribute negative motives to their good qualities so we never have to show admiration for anyone else or examine our own failings.
It works for a multitude of situations, whether we don't want to admire men for being athletic or women for being lovely.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 14, 2019, 07:36:19 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 07:15:09 PMOne way of looking at the behaviour of your lovely, shy, modest old lady friend is that she appears submissive but is in fact quite manipulative, having learned to "water her eyes" to get what she wants. Is that the kind of feminine behaviour you advocate?
Is there any other?
Yes. There is a completely different way.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 15, 2019, 12:07:16 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 14, 2019, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 14, 2019, 06:58:18 AM
Does anyone ever wonder whether the shy, modest, retiring ideal woman being praised on this thread would last five minutes in a family kitchen?
Where have all those strong Catholic women gone, the one's you wouldn't dare mess with. Criticise their husbands and you take your life into your hands. But don't imagine for one minute that they bore any resemblance to the delicate flowers being idealised here.
It's just the opposite in reality. These strong, masculine women are actually quite easy to manipulate, while a submissive, feminine woman is not.
A dominant woman thinks she is so smart and capable and can handle everything on her own, but so often she turns out to be mistaken.
A submissive woman, on the other hand, can handle any difficult situation with a simple, "My husband says so."
And speaking of family kitchens, I know a lovely, shy, modest, retiring old lady who spends all day cooking, cleaning, and serving others while being surrounded by dominant personalities, yet all she needs to do is water her eyes and there are ten men ready to jump to her defense.
The strong Catholic women I remember were not masculine or dominant. They were strong in their traditional roles.
One way of looking at the behaviour of your lovely, shy, modest old lady friend is that she appears submissive but is in fact quite manipulative, having learned to "water her eyes" to get what she wants. Is that the kind of feminine behaviour you advocate?
I absolutely advocate for the kind of feminine woman she is.
One way of looking at people- men and women alike- who are greatly our superior is to attribute negative motives to their good qualities so we never have to show admiration for anyone else or examine our own failings.
It works for a multitude of situations, whether we don't want to admire men for being athletic or women for being lovely.
Quote
I absolutely advocate for the kind of feminine woman she is.
Obviously. And I'm sure your friend is as lovely as you say she is.
But what you see is not always what you get. Have you never met a woman who appeared kind, gentle and sweet in all her outward behaviours but who actually turned out to be malicious and manipulative underneath it all? Do you admit that the more submissive, shy, modest and retiring such a woman seems, the more likely it is that she will keep her true nature concealed?
Quote
One way of looking at people- men and women alike- who are greatly our superior is to attribute negative motives to their good qualities so we never have to show admiration for anyone else or examine our own failings.
Yes, just like you implied that the strong Catholic women I was referring to were "masculine" and "dominant".
Quote
It works for a multitude of situations, whether we don't want to admire men for being athletic or women for being lovely.
I'll admit that the strong Catholic women I used to admire would most likely not have attended junior's football match, or expected their daughters to. And neither would their husbands. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have encouraged boys to play games. They did. It's just that they saw no need to turn the occasion into an admiration fest for junior.
I'm not sure what is the point of this digression about "pleasant and submissive" vs "tough, no nonsense" styles of traditional catholic women, since it seems to me that neither of them play competitive sports.
Quote from: Graham on November 15, 2019, 07:50:01 AM
I'm not sure what is the point of this digression about "pleasant and submissive" vs "tough, no nonsense" styles of traditional catholic women, since it seems to me that neither of them play competitive sports.
The "tough, no nonsense" description is yours. Why have you put it in quotation marks?
One point of this digression is to suggest that what you think you see is not always what you get.
Quote from: Graham on November 15, 2019, 07:50:01 AM
I'm not sure what is the point of this digression about "pleasant and submissive" vs "tough, no nonsense" styles of traditional catholic women, since it seems to me that neither of them play competitive sports.
An attempt to derail the discussion. I think, however, it fed very nicely into the discussion instead.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 13, 2019, 12:33:52 AM
Relating back to an earlier post, the Weston Price Foundation claims that a traditional diet can alleviate many of today's fertility problems. I remember the 1960s and 70s when people ate twice as much meat as they do today. Men and women took traditional roles, yes, but just as significantly both men and women were strong, vigorous and cheerful.
This reminds me that in Japan they use the phrase "herbivore" to refer to young men who find relationships with girls
mendokusai (troublesome) and who are incapable of producing a new generation of Japanese.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 14, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
Arvinger you misunderstood me. No one has a calling to a job/career.
I don't care if a woman remain single, but if she is single and has not devoted her life to God she will desire intimacy. If she isn't dedicated to a life to God and she craves intimacy and if it's not put in the proper context of life she will cause harm to herself, her morality, and her modesty.
There were always circumstances where women were single, especially after war, where they had to get jobs and try to provide for her family. The same is true at any time in history where a woman couldn't find a husband for whatever reason. The difference was a woman knew she didn't have a vocation to a career. No one has a calling to a job.
Women in the work force has been decidedly negative for single-family income. Men have to work harder to make the same income if both sexes work.
To your other point that the increase in the arts/sports/scientific does not affect their relationship with God I would only ask for you to look at the world today, even with trads. Girls more involved with those things seem to get married later and have higher dissatisfaction in married life, and think of marriage early as "settling". In the Novus Ordo girls who go down that direction play in public schools, dress immodestly, hardly ever keep the faith, and grow in masculine traits.
The desire to be "successful" from a worldly perspective has done enormous damage to our minds, that includes me. To not see the rot infesting the minds of young women is something I cannot understand from your perspective so I don't know how to continue.
Strangely I've had conversations with humble women who were corporate execs, doctors, etc. and they all admitted what I knew imperfectly. They admitted how they postponed getting married, stopping have more kids, and it was only when they embraced their state in life as a mother they realized how vain they were. Many of my beliefs are shaped by such conversations.
I met a girl from my confirmation class 10 years later. I met her mother and she said she would love to talk to me. She was a marine biologist and she told me her life was just gone downhill and she doesn't know how she could have a stable relationship. I remember her crying well. She left the faith and sadly I can't think of 1 girl in my confirmation class who kept their faith.
There are certain issues that I personally can't reconcile with a view like this - not that I think you are necessarily completely wrong.
1. Our entire society has been conditioned, even from the days of the Medieval Period, to view traditional feminine roles as lesser or inferior than the traditional masculine "bread-winner" "guardian" role. Moreover, there's a certain level of inequality between the opportunities available between the traditional masculine and traditional feminine roles.
In terms of inequality,
With traditional masculine roles, there's so much paths you could go down - medicine, law, business, politics, entrepreneurship, military, engineering, art, writing, music, agriculture, sports, religion, comedy, etc.
With traditional feminine roles, women only have two options - childbirth and raising, or monasticism. Maybe charity work, but even then the disconnect from monasticism was a Liberal innovation itself.
And our society, historically, has placed great emphasis and importance on all of the prior, masculine roles. Motherhood has only been given its significance and importance through sermons and religious connections to the Virgin Mary, and an artificial but ineffective, contemporary media campaign trying to show "how hard" motherhood is.
Besides the Virgin Mary, St. Anne (St. Anna), and maybe St. Monica, what famous mothers are you able to recollect in history? Everyone remembers George Washington, Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Steven Spielberg, Charlie Chaplain, the Three Stooges, etc.
Indeed, St. Joan of Arc is one of the most famous female Saints, and the only reason for it was because she successfully was able to perform a masculine role - military leadership.
I think these two things - the fact that our society hasn't historically or non-artificially placed value on these traditional feminine roles, and have clearly felt it as inferior or less to talk about, and the lack of freedom of choice-making for traditionally feminine roles, is what really motivates this feminist drive and disdain for traditionally feminine roles - not that they necessarily hate being a woman (some obviously do), but these roles are often challenged.
2. On top of this, there are several anecdotal instances which I've encountered where a woman is way more intelligent and qualified to do what they do or teach what they teach, at least compared to what some men I've known were able to do.
Some of my law professors - women - are some of the smartest and most intelligent individuals I've ever met. One's a mother, the other one that comes to mind is single. Just the ability to think critically and analyze things the way they do is mindblowing to me, and really knocked down the narcissism of my own perceived intellectual abilities. And I certainly think that we have plenty of men in the legal profession, or even as law professors, who aren't nearly as qualified.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy. I appeal on similar grounds to what John Stuart Mill did on the "Woman" question - Utilitarian grounds; our world has plenty of intelligent and skilled women in many different fields - perhaps not all fields - and maybe there is a potential we are depriving our own societal benefit from restraining women to just traditional feminine roles in certain fields.
Moreover, who are we to refrain women who are more intelligent and skilled at what they do in the very fields that tradition-minded people argue where women belong in society.
Am I the only person here who just doesn't care anymore?
I just don't don't care either way. If women want to beat each other up, sports organisations want to have trannies compete, Joe sixpack wants to watch idiots kicking a ball around a field, homos want to sodomise each other, or whatever, i just don't care. And that's not a Libertarian "everyone should be allowed to do what they want to". If a Stalin were to come along and put them all in "labour" camps, I wouldn't care either. Let the circus go on, let the cancer consume itself, and if God wants to put a stop to it some time, he's always welcome by me to rain burning sulphur from the sky.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 14, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
Arvinger you misunderstood me. No one has a calling to a job/career.
I don't care if a woman remain single, but if she is single and has not devoted her life to God she will desire intimacy. If she isn't dedicated to a life to God and she craves intimacy and if it's not put in the proper context of life she will cause harm to herself, her morality, and her modesty.
There were always circumstances where women were single, especially after war, where they had to get jobs and try to provide for her family. The same is true at any time in history where a woman couldn't find a husband for whatever reason. The difference was a woman knew she didn't have a vocation to a career. No one has a calling to a job.
Women in the work force has been decidedly negative for single-family income. Men have to work harder to make the same income if both sexes work.
To your other point that the increase in the arts/sports/scientific does not affect their relationship with God I would only ask for you to look at the world today, even with trads. Girls more involved with those things seem to get married later and have higher dissatisfaction in married life, and think of marriage early as "settling". In the Novus Ordo girls who go down that direction play in public schools, dress immodestly, hardly ever keep the faith, and grow in masculine traits.
The desire to be "successful" from a worldly perspective has done enormous damage to our minds, that includes me. To not see the rot infesting the minds of young women is something I cannot understand from your perspective so I don't know how to continue.
Strangely I've had conversations with humble women who were corporate execs, doctors, etc. and they all admitted what I knew imperfectly. They admitted how they postponed getting married, stopping have more kids, and it was only when they embraced their state in life as a mother they realized how vain they were. Many of my beliefs are shaped by such conversations.
I met a girl from my confirmation class 10 years later. I met her mother and she said she would love to talk to me. She was a marine biologist and she told me her life was just gone downhill and she doesn't know how she could have a stable relationship. I remember her crying well. She left the faith and sadly I can't think of 1 girl in my confirmation class who kept their faith.
There are certain issues that I personally can't reconcile with a view like this - not that I think you are necessarily completely wrong.
1. Our entire society has been conditioned, even from the days of the Medieval Period, to view traditional feminine roles as lesser or inferior than the traditional masculine "bread-winner" "guardian" role. Moreover, there's a certain level of inequality between the opportunities available between the traditional masculine and traditional feminine roles.
In terms of inequality,
With traditional masculine roles, there's so much paths you could go down - medicine, law, business, politics, entrepreneurship, military, engineering, art, writing, music, agriculture, sports, religion, comedy, etc.
With traditional feminine roles, women only have two options - childbirth and raising, or monasticism. Maybe charity work, but even then the disconnect from monasticism was a Liberal innovation itself.
And our society, historically, has placed great emphasis and importance on all of the prior, masculine roles. Motherhood has only been given its significance and importance through sermons and religious connections to the Virgin Mary, and an artificial but ineffective, contemporary media campaign trying to show "how hard" motherhood is.
Besides the Virgin Mary, St. Anne (St. Anna), and maybe St. Monica, what famous mothers are you able to recollect in history? Everyone remembers George Washington, Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Steven Spielberg, Charlie Chaplain, the Three Stooges, etc.
Indeed, St. Joan of Arc is one of the most famous female Saints, and the only reason for it was because she successfully was able to perform a masculine role - military leadership.
I think these two things - the fact that our society hasn't historically or non-artificially placed value on these traditional feminine roles, and have clearly felt it as inferior or less to talk about, and the lack of freedom of choice-making for traditionally feminine roles, is what really motivates this feminist drive and disdain for traditionally feminine roles - not that they necessarily hate being a woman (some obviously do), but these roles are often challenged.
2. On top of this, there are several anecdotal instances which I've encountered where a woman is way more intelligent and qualified to do what they do or teach what they teach, at least compared to what some men I've known were able to do.
Some of my law professors - women - are some of the smartest and most intelligent individuals I've ever met. One's a mother, the other one that comes to mind is single. Just the ability to think critically and analyze things the way they do is mindblowing to me, and really knocked down the narcissism of my own perceived intellectual abilities. And I certainly think that we have plenty of men in the legal profession, or even as law professors, who aren't nearly as qualified.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy. I appeal on similar grounds to what John Stuart Mill did on the "Woman" question - Utilitarian grounds; our world has plenty of intelligent and skilled women in many different fields - perhaps not all fields - and maybe there is a potential we are depriving our own societal benefit from restraining women to just traditional feminine roles in certain fields.
Moreover, who are we to refrain women who are more intelligent and skilled at what they do in the very fields that tradition-minded people argue where women belong in society.
Perhaps part of the problem is that income generating work has become separated from family life. Men, and now women, go to work to earn a wage. The home no longer functions as a centre of income generation that involves each family member.
In a pre-industrial society, you bought your shoes from a local cobbler who probably lived with his family above his workshop, belonged to the local guild and employed an apprentice or two. It would make complete sense for all family members to be involved in the successful running of such a business and this would provide a variety of work roles for women - keeping the books, running the shop, mixing the dyes etc. There would not be such a separation between the world of men's work and women's.
Many of the modern women who initially questioned women's roles were more specifically rebelling against the idea of being isolated in a suburban house all day miles away from everything they thought was going on elsewhere. It's a pity that the almost symbiotic relationship between, say, the flax farmer (husband) and flax weaver (wife) traditional model wasn't suggested as an alternative to that. Instead women demanded entry to the workplace and followed their husbands out of the home.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 15, 2019, 05:42:54 PM
Am I the only person here who just doesn't care anymore?
I just don't don't care either way. If women want to beat each other up, sports organisations want to have trannies compete, Joe sixpack wants to watch idiots kicking a ball around a field, homos want to sodomise each other, or whatever, i just don't care. And that's not a Libertarian "everyone should be allowed to do what they want to". If a Stalin were to come along and put them all in "labour" camps, I wouldn't care either. Let the circus go on, let the cancer consume itself, and if God wants to put a stop to it some time, he's always welcome by me to rain burning sulphur from the sky.
"And the Lord said: Dost thou think thou hast reason to be angry?"
Jonah 4:4
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 15, 2019, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: bigbadtrad on November 14, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
Arvinger you misunderstood me. No one has a calling to a job/career.
I don't care if a woman remain single, but if she is single and has not devoted her life to God she will desire intimacy. If she isn't dedicated to a life to God and she craves intimacy and if it's not put in the proper context of life she will cause harm to herself, her morality, and her modesty.
There were always circumstances where women were single, especially after war, where they had to get jobs and try to provide for her family. The same is true at any time in history where a woman couldn't find a husband for whatever reason. The difference was a woman knew she didn't have a vocation to a career. No one has a calling to a job.
Women in the work force has been decidedly negative for single-family income. Men have to work harder to make the same income if both sexes work.
To your other point that the increase in the arts/sports/scientific does not affect their relationship with God I would only ask for you to look at the world today, even with trads. Girls more involved with those things seem to get married later and have higher dissatisfaction in married life, and think of marriage early as "settling". In the Novus Ordo girls who go down that direction play in public schools, dress immodestly, hardly ever keep the faith, and grow in masculine traits.
The desire to be "successful" from a worldly perspective has done enormous damage to our minds, that includes me. To not see the rot infesting the minds of young women is something I cannot understand from your perspective so I don't know how to continue.
Strangely I've had conversations with humble women who were corporate execs, doctors, etc. and they all admitted what I knew imperfectly. They admitted how they postponed getting married, stopping have more kids, and it was only when they embraced their state in life as a mother they realized how vain they were. Many of my beliefs are shaped by such conversations.
I met a girl from my confirmation class 10 years later. I met her mother and she said she would love to talk to me. She was a marine biologist and she told me her life was just gone downhill and she doesn't know how she could have a stable relationship. I remember her crying well. She left the faith and sadly I can't think of 1 girl in my confirmation class who kept their faith.
There are certain issues that I personally can't reconcile with a view like this - not that I think you are necessarily completely wrong.
1. Our entire society has been conditioned, even from the days of the Medieval Period, to view traditional feminine roles as lesser or inferior than the traditional masculine "bread-winner" "guardian" role. Moreover, there's a certain level of inequality between the opportunities available between the traditional masculine and traditional feminine roles.
In terms of inequality,
With traditional masculine roles, there's so much paths you could go down - medicine, law, business, politics, entrepreneurship, military, engineering, art, writing, music, agriculture, sports, religion, comedy, etc.
With traditional feminine roles, women only have two options - childbirth and raising, or monasticism. Maybe charity work, but even then the disconnect from monasticism was a Liberal innovation itself.
And our society, historically, has placed great emphasis and importance on all of the prior, masculine roles. Motherhood has only been given its significance and importance through sermons and religious connections to the Virgin Mary, and an artificial but ineffective, contemporary media campaign trying to show "how hard" motherhood is.
Besides the Virgin Mary, St. Anne (St. Anna), and maybe St. Monica, what famous mothers are you able to recollect in history? Everyone remembers George Washington, Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Steven Spielberg, Charlie Chaplain, the Three Stooges, etc.
Indeed, St. Joan of Arc is one of the most famous female Saints, and the only reason for it was because she successfully was able to perform a masculine role - military leadership.
I think these two things - the fact that our society hasn't historically or non-artificially placed value on these traditional feminine roles, and have clearly felt it as inferior or less to talk about, and the lack of freedom of choice-making for traditionally feminine roles, is what really motivates this feminist drive and disdain for traditionally feminine roles - not that they necessarily hate being a woman (some obviously do), but these roles are often challenged.
2. On top of this, there are several anecdotal instances which I've encountered where a woman is way more intelligent and qualified to do what they do or teach what they teach, at least compared to what some men I've known were able to do.
Some of my law professors - women - are some of the smartest and most intelligent individuals I've ever met. One's a mother, the other one that comes to mind is single. Just the ability to think critically and analyze things the way they do is mindblowing to me, and really knocked down the narcissism of my own perceived intellectual abilities. And I certainly think that we have plenty of men in the legal profession, or even as law professors, who aren't nearly as qualified.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy. I appeal on similar grounds to what John Stuart Mill did on the "Woman" question - Utilitarian grounds; our world has plenty of intelligent and skilled women in many different fields - perhaps not all fields - and maybe there is a potential we are depriving our own societal benefit from restraining women to just traditional feminine roles in certain fields.
Moreover, who are we to refrain women who are more intelligent and skilled at what they do in the very fields that tradition-minded people argue where women belong in society.
Perhaps part of the problem is that income generating work has become separated from family life. Men, and now women, go to work to earn a wage. The home no longer functions as a centre of income generation that involves each family member.
In a pre-industrial society, you bought your shoes from a local cobbler who probably lived with his family above his workshop, belonged to the local guild and employed an apprentice or two. It would make complete sense for all family members to be involved in the successful running of such a business and this would provide a variety of work roles for women - keeping the books, running the shop, mixing the dyes etc. There would not be such a separation between the world of men's work and women's.
Many of the modern women who initially questioned women's roles were more specifically rebelling against the idea of being isolated in a suburban house all day miles away from everything they thought was going on elsewhere. It's a pity that the almost symbiotic relationship between, say, the flax farmer (husband) and flax weaver (wife) traditional model wasn't suggested as an alternative to that. Instead women demanded entry to the workplace and followed their husbands out of the home.
Those are valid points.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
1. Our entire society has been conditioned, even from the days of the Medieval Period, to view traditional feminine roles as lesser or inferior than the traditional masculine "bread-winner" "guardian" role. Moreover, there's a certain level of inequality between the opportunities available between the traditional masculine and traditional feminine roles.
Yes, because women are fundamentally unequal to men. This view comes from "the Medieval Period," as your say, and prior to that from thousands of years of human experience, beginning in the Garden of Eden. It was then confirmed by the Holy Ghost through the inspired epistles of St. Paul.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
With traditional feminine roles, women only have two options - childbirth and raising, or monasticism. Maybe charity work, but even then the disconnect from monasticism was a Liberal innovation itself.
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men. St. Thomas points out that women are helpmates to men primarily only in childbearing because in any other circumstance another man would be a better helpmate.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
I think these two things - the fact that our society hasn't historically or non-artificially placed value on these traditional feminine roles, and have clearly felt it as inferior or less to talk about, and the lack of freedom of choice-making for traditionally feminine roles, is what really motivates this feminist drive and disdain for traditionally feminine roles - not that they necessarily hate being a woman (some obviously do), but these roles are often challenged.
Yes, like Lucifer they say "I will not serve." Women are meant to serve men. In any other capacity they are rebelling against the natural order.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
2. On top of this, there are several anecdotal instances which I've encountered where a woman is way more intelligent and qualified to do what they do or teach what they teach, at least compared to what some men I've known were able to do. Some of my law professors - women - are some of the smartest and most intelligent individuals I've ever met.
"Anecdotal instances" which refute all the available data. One can always find 1 individual woman who is stronger than 1 individual man. But the reality is that the grip strength of the average man on the street is greater than that of Olympic female athletes.
The same is true even more so intellectually. Ever since women have been admitted into universities they have become moral cesspools -- that much is obvious -- but even more crucially they have abandoned any pretense of intellectual standards. Intellectual life has ceased to exist.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy.
Of course you are.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
I appeal on similar grounds to what John Stuart Mill did on the "Woman" question - Utilitarian grounds; our world has plenty of intelligent and skilled women in many different fields - perhaps not all fields - and maybe there is a potential we are depriving our own societal benefit from restraining women to just traditional feminine roles in certain fields.
Idiocy. Wicked idiocy. Utilitarianism is always and fundamentally an evil philosophy. But when you use Utilitarianism as a justification for changing the nature of men and women as they are created by God, then you cross over into the realm of Stalin and Mao.
Utilitarianism destroys all reason for living. If the past 100 years are not enough evidence that utilitarianism is of the devil then I do not know what else could.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
2. On top of this, there are several anecdotal instances which I've encountered where a woman is way more intelligent and qualified to do what they do or teach what they teach, at least compared to what some men I've known were able to do.
Some of my law professors - women - are some of the smartest and most intelligent individuals I've ever met.
I once read a statement by a female political commentator on why she quit to have a family. She said "Instead of them getting the rest of me, now I can give the best of me."
My friend said exactly the same thing to me years ago. He was a dear friend and asked me "What if my wife could make more than me, which she can, and I stay home?" I replied "you'll masculinize your wife and ruin your family." He said "do you know what's how we actively live?" I said replied no and it led to a little laughter as both felt a little embarassed.
5 years later she had an affair and demanded him out of the house so she could continue her affair. She was a wonderful woman, I was close to them and it was devastating to their 5 children and especially my friend.
Nature is stronger than capacity. Our capacities don't dictate our lifestyle or our state in life. I've been edified to meet many a great nun, priest, etc. who were once brilliant in the world but now forgotten. In the same way I had the honor of meeting with this woman, her husband and her 8 kids. She was a doctor and realized that once she accepted the faith it wouldn't be right to undermine her family continuing as a doctor. She had incredible clarity on the issue.
I'm sure your female professors are brilliant in law, I really do. But if/when they decide to have a family do you really think they'll be truly equipped to raise saints or want to continue being brilliant for the world? I consider everyone a dummy by the way except those who wish and strive to be saints. Even the greatest of chemists are horrible lawyers and vice versa. The human mind is amazingly limited.
A simple brother once lamented to St. Bonaventure he wished he had his intellect. St. Bonaventure replied that anyone who loves God more than himself is far more intelligent. I hope we adopt the mind of the saints more and the world less.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 15, 2019, 09:08:55 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
1. Our entire society has been conditioned, even from the days of the Medieval Period, to view traditional feminine roles as lesser or inferior than the traditional masculine "bread-winner" "guardian" role. Moreover, there's a certain level of inequality between the opportunities available between the traditional masculine and traditional feminine roles.
Yes, because women are fundamentally unequal to men. This view comes from "the Medieval Period," as your say, and prior to that from thousands of years of human experience, beginning in the Garden of Eden. It was then confirmed by the Holy Ghost through the inspired epistles of St. Paul.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
With traditional feminine roles, women only have two options - childbirth and raising, or monasticism. Maybe charity work, but even then the disconnect from monasticism was a Liberal innovation itself.
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men. St. Thomas points out that women are helpmates to men primarily only in childbearing because in any other circumstance another man would be a better helpmate.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
I think these two things - the fact that our society hasn't historically or non-artificially placed value on these traditional feminine roles, and have clearly felt it as inferior or less to talk about, and the lack of freedom of choice-making for traditionally feminine roles, is what really motivates this feminist drive and disdain for traditionally feminine roles - not that they necessarily hate being a woman (some obviously do), but these roles are often challenged.
Yes, like Lucifer they say "I will not serve." Women are meant to serve men. In any other capacity they are rebelling against the natural order.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
2. On top of this, there are several anecdotal instances which I've encountered where a woman is way more intelligent and qualified to do what they do or teach what they teach, at least compared to what some men I've known were able to do. Some of my law professors - women - are some of the smartest and most intelligent individuals I've ever met.
"Anecdotal instances" which refute all the available data. One can always find 1 individual woman who is stronger than 1 individual man. But the reality is that the grip strength of the average man on the street is greater than that of Olympic female athletes.
The same is true even more so intellectually. Ever since women have been admitted into universities they have become moral cesspools -- that much is obvious -- but even more crucially they have abandoned any pretense of intellectual standards. Intellectual life has ceased to exist.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy.
Of course you are.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 15, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
I appeal on similar grounds to what John Stuart Mill did on the "Woman" question - Utilitarian grounds; our world has plenty of intelligent and skilled women in many different fields - perhaps not all fields - and maybe there is a potential we are depriving our own societal benefit from restraining women to just traditional feminine roles in certain fields.
Idiocy. Wicked idiocy. Utilitarianism is always and fundamentally an evil philosophy. But when you use Utilitarianism as a justification for changing the nature of men and women as they are created by God, then you cross over into the realm of Stalin and Mao.
Given that God in His wisdom has provided women with alternatives to marriage in the form of the monastic life and the single life, it must be the case that some women serve men best by not marrying them.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 15, 2019, 09:08:55 PM
Yes, because women are fundamentally unequal to men. This view comes from "the Medieval Period," as your say, and prior to that from thousands of years of human experience, beginning in the Garden of Eden. It was then confirmed by the Holy Ghost through the inspired epistles of St. Paul.
I don't even know where to begin. Women are NOT unequal to men. They have a different function in society, but that does not make them lesser, it makes them different. A cow and a horse have very different purposes, one is not "better" than the other.
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men. St. Thomas points out that women are helpmates to men primarily only in childbearing because in any other circumstance another man would be a better helpmate.
St. Thomas did not "point this out," he stated an opinion. Pointing something out means that you are direction attention to fact. This opinion is highly debatable.
Yes, like Lucifer they say "I will not serve." Women are meant to serve men. In any other capacity they are rebelling against the natural order.
Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe? Yes, i can see where she was following Satan, good point...Women are meant to live and become saints. When you marry a man he is meant to serve you and you are meant to serve him. You both have obligations and privileges, it is not a one-way street. A single woman in the world who consecrates herself to God is not serving any man and she is on a high moral plain, how do you explain that? Please go listen to Fr. Ripperger's sermons on marriage to learn a little about a woman's role.
"Anecdotal instances" which refute all the available data. One can always find 1 individual woman who is stronger than 1 individual man. But the reality is that the grip strength of the average man on the street is greater than that of Olympic female athletes.
There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man. You are obviously completely correct about physical capacity, that is one way in which a woman could never equal a man, nor should she want to. That is against nature, it is obvious, you don't need anyone to tell you that or argue that. God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women. I think that just about gives you your answer.
The same is true even more so intellectually. Ever since women have been admitted into universities they have become moral cesspools -- that much is obvious -- but even more crucially they have abandoned any pretense of intellectual standards. Intellectual life has ceased to exist.
Intellectual standards have not been abandoned because of the presence of women. Intellectual standards have been abandoned because a bunch of hippie men (not women) became professors and turned universities into lib-tard, atheist training ground for the next generation. I would always point out that a person is perfectly capable, if not more capable, of participating in the intellectual life outside of a university setting. Now, I am not a fan of co-ed education at all. I hate it, I think it is really dreadful and a terrible threat to our young people. That however has nothing to do with plummeting intellectual standards.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 15, 2019, 09:08:55 PM
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men......
.....
Women are meant to serve men.....
Surely there's a difference between being a helpmate to men and serving them. You've described both as being the role of women.
Perhaps men and women with the marriage vocation get to choose. Men who want their wives to serve them find wives who are called to serve. Men who want their wives to be helpmates find wives who are called to be helpmates.
Choices have consequences though. A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example.
Perhaps the trend for leaving the city and buying rural properties capable of supporting family smallholdings and businesses represents an attempt to recreate some version of home-based income generation that allows each family member to make a contribution based on their roles and abilities.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 16, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
Choices have consequences though. A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example.
I'm pretty sure that, outside of the upper classes, women have always worked. When it wasn't on the farmstead or cottage industry, the industrial revolution sent them off to the factories. The 1950s stay-at-home suburban housewife is an historical aberration.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 16, 2019, 05:41:07 AM
Given that God in His wisdom has provided women with alternatives to marriage in the form of the monastic life and the single life, it must be the case that some women serve men best by not marrying them.
Yes, that's true. Marriage is not for everyone. Some women fulfill the role for which they were created by God in ways other than marriage. I'm sure there are some women who are doing a favor to themselves and to potential partners by deciding not to marry.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 16, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 15, 2019, 09:08:55 PM
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men......
.....
Women are meant to serve men.....
Surely there's a difference between being a helpmate to men and serving them. You've described both as being the role of women.
I think being a helpmeet means many things. It sometimes means to serve. Serve can also mean many things. Helping/serving/loving/supporting...all the same. My only point is that this is a choice, born from love, that a woman makes when choosing to marry. It is not her vocation to serve a man like a subordinate. Her vocation is to serve God. The fact that she has so great a dignity, so beautiful a role given her by God, and she chooses to be humble and invisible at home, is one of the things that make traditional female marriage so spiritually beautiful
Perhaps men and women with the marriage vocation get to choose. Men who want their wives to serve them find wives who are called to serve. Men who want their wives to be helpmates find wives who are called to be helpmates.
Choices have consequences though. A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example.
Depends on the service. A man in the old days would have considered a woman sewing clothing for their family, growing vegetables in the garden, etc as contributing economically. Now, in the face of corporate work and cash compensation, these things are relegated to "hobbies" and a thrifty housewife is cast as a non-contributor. I would point out that if the point of marriage is the procreation of children, women can not be considered other than an equal contributor. Again, see Fr. Ripperger.
Perhaps the trend for leaving the city and buying rural properties capable of supporting family smallholdings and businesses represents an attempt to recreate some version of home-based income generation that allows each family member to make a contribution based on their roles and abilities.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 16, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
Surely there's a difference between being a helpmate to men and serving them. You've described both as being the role of women.
You can make a distinction between "helpmate" and "serving," but it's not a difference. The two concepts work together. One who is a helpmate serves their superior.
First God created Eve to be a helpmate to Adam. But then later He ordered her to serve Adam.
Genesis 3[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and
thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have
dominion over thee.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 16, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example.
The reality is just the opposite:
- A wife who stays home and serves the family makes a tremendous economic contribution.
- A wife who gets a job is a net monetary loss for the family as well as for society.
The income from a second job looks attractive, but when you analyze it more closely, you see that the family is losing money:
- Extra taxes, especially since the husband's job already used all the deductions
- Extra car, extra clothes, extra restaurant food
- Child care expenses; without taking advantage of family members, it's impossible.
Meanwhile the family has lost everything they would have had with the family's wife and mother at home.
Pope Pius XI said:
Casti Connubii:
74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting
obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is
not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to
follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally
economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be
at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.
75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the
debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which
- the
husband suffers the loss of his wife,
- the
children of their mother,
- and the
home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian.
More than this, this
false liberty and
unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.
76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be
a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
Women are NOT unequal to men.
Argument by ALL CAPS. Recognized on the internet, but not a legitimate theological approach.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
St. Thomas did not "point this out," he stated an opinion. Pointing something out means that you are direction attention to fact. This opinion is highly debatable.
The
Summa Theologica is not "opinions." Your statements, on the other hand, are opinions. A traditional Catholic can distinguish.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe?
Yes, definitely. Have you read St. Theresa? She repeatedly stresses the importance of religious women not trusting themselves but rather putting themselves under the authority male leaders, as she herself did.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man.
I have seen no such data. Just the opposite.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women
What Aquinas Really Said about WomenIn several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that
the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe...
Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas' position on woman's intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities—we should love our own. God wants inequalities in rational beings, and if we love God we should conform our will to His. It is pride, the excessive desire of our own excellence, that tends to make us sad when another has some perfection or grace we do not have. To sorrow at the good is intrinsically evil. In our discussions of the differences between the sexes, we must avoid yielding to impulses of envy, but strive rather to love whatever littleness we may have due to our sex, as God loves it.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 16, 2019, 01:10:07 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 16, 2019, 10:44:49 AM
A wife who serves will be economically inactive, whereas a helpmate could make quite a contribution to a family business, or farm, for example.
The reality is just the opposite:
- A wife who stays home and serves the family makes a tremendous economic contribution.
- A wife who gets a job is a net monetary loss for the family as well as for society.
The income from a second job looks attractive, but when you analyze it more closely, you see that the family is losing money:
- Extra taxes, especially since the husband's job already used all the deductions
- Extra car, extra clothes, extra restaurant food
- Child care expenses; without taking advantage of family members, it's impossible.
I wasn't talking about a woman getting a job outside of the home.
I was specifically talking about the contribution a woman could make to a family business conducted from the family home, as would likely have been much more common in pre-industrial societies in which men's employment also takes place in the home, eg in smallholdings and family businesses like the example of the Medieval cobbler I gave in another post.
And what about the flax farmer (husband) and the flax weaver (wife) model? Should the farmer hire a man to weave the cloth instead?
But you didn't address this.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 16, 2019, 01:37:38 PM
Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe?
Yes, definitely. Have you read St. Theresa? She repeatedly stresses the importance of religious women not trusting themselves but rather putting themselves under the authority male leaders, as she herself did.
Using male leaders to help you figure out what to do is not serving man...what? Those are two completely different things. Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man.
I have seen no such data. Just the opposite.
I would point to the female astronauts, mathematicians, scientists, etc for some examples. It is true that throughout history women have a poor showing in intellectual fields. That however is from not having the chance to try, not because of a lack of ability. The most famous tailors in the world have primarily been men. Is that because men are naturally better equipped to sew? No, it is because women were busy sewing at home, and men were perfecting skills to make money. Men have also been the most famous chefs in the world, again, not because they are better equipped to cook. It is about having the chance to perfect a craft. You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff as us." When given the chance and the time, they are. The thing is, when a woman is married it is her job to be a multi-tasker. She cannot focus her energy in one field only. Even if she did, men are the ones in the public sphere, getting credit for their accomplishments. A woman could be brilliant at many things and no one would ever know. Now that you have women in these fields, you are seeing equality in ability. According to stats (since you seem to care so darn much) females perform far better than males in math and science in school today. Now, there is a whole heap of context that accounts for this, some of which is the public school system, but nevertheless, that's what the stats say. Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women
What Aquinas Really Said about WomenIn several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that
the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe...
He is welcome to think that, and considering that men were all taught philosophy, logic, Latin, and math in his day; while women were taught knitting, singing, and dancing, it is no wonder he was under that impression. Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas' position on woman's intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities-we should love our own.
[/quote]
That is too rich. Considering that you are of the opinion that women are "made to serve man" (totally false, women are to be under the authority of their husbands, that does not have anything to do with women in general or why they were created) and that women are intellectually inferior, I wonder what littleness and inferiority you think you have to do deal with? Do you actually think there is some area in which God has granted greater abilities to women? How does that gel with men being better helpers in all things other than childbirth? All of the great saints talk about humility, that to become nothing is to become perfect. Women understand this concept just fine, we don't need your help. Most trad men of your ilk however, seem to spend their time figuring out how to diminish women, and explain how little and humble they should be. I think of a bit of time focused on trad men becoming humble and contemplating the obligations of their vocation would serve this forum well. Why the obsession?
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 15, 2019, 04:32:20 AM
Obviously. And I'm sure your friend is as lovely as you say she is.
Thank you for clarifying that. She's even lovelier. It's too easy to type out the words "spends all day serving others" and it doesn't fully convey what that really entails and what kind of person you need to be in order to spend your life that way.
Quote
But what you see is not always what you get. Have you never met a woman who appeared kind, gentle and sweet in all her outward behaviours but who actually turned out to be malicious and manipulative underneath it all? Do you admit that the more submissive, shy, modest and retiring such a woman seems, the more likely it is that she will keep her true nature concealed?
No, I've never met someone like that. Those qualities are actually incredibly difficult to fake. The director of the movie "Junebug" had to deal with this problem when trying to find an actress who could play a genuinely good woman. Amy Adams was the only actress in the world who could play the part without coming across as false or ironic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081206021444/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/07/for_actress_amy_adams_role_was_a_turning_point/?page=2
Quote from: Graham on November 15, 2019, 07:50:01 AM
I'm not sure what is the point of this digression about "pleasant and submissive" vs "tough, no nonsense" styles of traditional catholic women, since it seems to me that neither of them play competitive sports.
It stemmed from the quote Aeternitus gave from Fr. Leen in which he said that tenderness, devotedness, adaptability, strength, grace, restraint, endurance, helpfulness, modesty, reserve, dignity, and sensibility are the characteristics that a woman should have and which are destroyed by sports.
This is the quote with which several people disagreed.
Quote from: Arvinger on November 14, 2019, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 14, 2019, 06:18:33 AM
I have two concerns with this argument. First of all, in choosing a career, sportswomen (and men) only have a short career life to factor into their overall life-plan. By early or mid-30s most are past their prime and younger, stronger, fitter and faster versions have replaced them. Consequently, they have another lifetime or more (35 years +) to plan for, so it is not the same as a woman who has chosen a profession/career, which can sustain her throughout her working life. Of course some may not need to work, if they have been successful enough to fund the rest of their lives. But they do have to do something with the rest of their lives... Marriage may be one option - if they can find a suitable choice who has not been married before. But they have certainly reduced their options in this area.
Sure, but that is a problem everyone, man or woman, faces when deciding for a career in professional sports. This type of career is short and one has to actively prepare for a new life after it ends - one has to be aware of that and make proper preparations and save enough money during the career.
Agreed. However, a woman would have to be
very successful to have saved enough to support herself for 35, 40, 50 more years. As a general rule, women live longer than men. Only the very rare few of those who gave it a try would achieve this in comparison to many more men, who have a larger, more lucrative field in which to excel and are not limited by modesty restrictions to the same extent. Men often have endorsements from their sponsors, contributing to their income, due to their public popularity, which women wouldn't necessarily enjoy unless they were willing to promote a lot of that immodest sports clothing. The majority of women embarking on a sports career would at best be mildly successful for a short period and they wouldn't know that they were only going to be mildly successful until their short career was all but over. They would then be at a cross-roads at mid-life with more choices to make and limited options. Is such an uncertain and short-term choice worth it for a woman in the scheme of life – a catholic life? I am yet to be convinced. A doctor or a nuclear scientist is a career choice for life, aimed at assisting/benefitting society, which, in my view, does not compare.
Quote from: AeternusSecondly, I believe Bp Sanborn and any of the traditional clergy would oppose a sports career for women on the issue of modesty alone, let alone any other potentially valid reason. I've seen photos of women footballers in action shots that I would not permit a child or young man under my control to view. And to equate Bp Sanborn's example of a woman who chooses nuclear science as a career with one who chooses a sports career, in my view, is an Olympian leap in itself. I know he says: "then do whatever you want as a career", but it goes without saying that would not include anything that involves mortal sin.
QuoteBut that assumes that immodesty and other mortal sins are inherent to professional sports, which they are not. In a proper Catholic order the same sports could be practiced with consideration of proper standards of modesty in dressing. Current immodesty in many sports says more about modern society and its mores than sport itself.
As we live in modern society and professional sport for women is a product of modern society, played in modern society, against competitors from modern society, is there any current sport for women, played in the proper Catholic order, at the professional level, generating sufficient income for one proficient enough at it to consider it a career? If it didn't pay the way (which it wouldn't if not played in modern society) it would not be a career, but a recreational activity, subject to the Catholic principles governing recreation. Modesty is not only about dress, it is also about deportment. I have been trying to think of a sport in which woman could not only dress modestly, but would also have no need to engage in immodest body positions, leg raises/stretches, etc., subject to the public eye, in the quest for competitive superiority. All I can come up with are golf, archery, cricket perhaps, but not necessarily, if one needs to dive to catch a ball. Perhaps you can think of some more? A tennis-playing woman in a calf length skirt, as opposed to the micro-mini version, is not going to be able to stretch for a ball like Serena and her contemporaries. And if the skirt is full enough to allow our Catholic lady the freedom for such a stretch, then the chances are quite high of the skirt ending up around her ears on occasion, as she goes into a momentum induced tumble.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 15, 2019, 09:08:55 PM
Yes, because women are fundamentally unequal to men. This view comes from "the Medieval Period," as your say, and prior to that from thousands of years of human experience, beginning in the Garden of Eden. It was then confirmed by the Holy Ghost through the inspired epistles of St. Paul.
Could you explain how Eve was fundamentally made to be inferior to Adam? Because she was made second to Adam to be his helper?
Marie de France in the 12th century was basically told to shut up on the same argument you are (likely) making. She exegeted the Genesis account right back at them, stating that Eve was made from humanity, and Adam was made from dust. Personal exegeses of Genesis won't help you, because there's nothing explicit about women being inferior to men. The only thing that suggests that is that women, as a result of the Fall, have to submit to their husbands - but that means little in terms of inferiority. It's also not something of God's own Pre-Fall design, but rather a result of the Fall. Indeed, marriages are dissolved in Heaven, despite an eternal mark on the soul.
Saint Paul can also be exegeted differently as well. Just because women have to submit themselves to their husbands and women shouldn't talk in Church doesn't necessarily imply they are inferior in their nature.
Quote
Yes, because women are created for the purpose of being helpmates to men. St. Thomas points out that women are helpmates to men primarily only in childbearing because in any other circumstance another man would be a better helpmate.
And St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception. It's not as if all Patristic authorship stopped up until this Italian Dominican friar was born, and then he remains the only Church Father. And in the Church Fathers, you will find varying levels and degrees of how much liberty and roles women are allowed to have.
Saint Clement of Alexandria said women should have their entire body covered except their eyes (where the Burka obviously comes from). Do you agree with that? He also stated that men who shave their beards were feminine.
Quote
"Anecdotal instances" which refute all the available data. One can always find 1 individual woman who is stronger than 1 individual man. But the reality is that the grip strength of the average man on the street is greater than that of Olympic female athletes.
Lol, I'm glad you've managed to find and quantify objective data. It's not as if your own "available data" is going off of your own anecdotal experiences.
Quote
The same is true even more so intellectually. Ever since women have been admitted into universities they have become moral cesspools -- that much is obvious -- but even more crucially they have abandoned any pretense of intellectual standards. Intellectual life has ceased to exist.
Universities were moral cesspools even since the time of Martin Luther, who became disillusioned with how much drinking there was at the university. Even then, women aren't the cause of Eugenics, Marxism, Nihilism, the New Age, and other Enlightenment products.
Quote
Of course you are.
No, I'm not.
Quote
Idiocy. Wicked idiocy. Utilitarianism is always and fundamentally an evil philosophy. But when you use Utilitarianism as a justification for changing the nature of men and women as they are created by God, then you cross over into the realm of Stalin and Mao.
You have to prove the nature of women is to be inferior to man to assert that I'm using Utilitarianism to change the nature of men and women. Also, could you explain why Utilitarianism is
always an evil philosophy?
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 16, 2019, 01:37:38 PM
Like St. Theresa of Avila maybe?
Yes, definitely. Have you read St. Theresa? She repeatedly stresses the importance of religious women not trusting themselves but rather putting themselves under the authority male leaders, as she herself did.
Using male leaders to help you figure out what to do is not serving man...what? Those are two completely different things.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
There is plenty of data showing that women who dedicated themselves to intellectual fields have an equal ability to excel in that field as a man.
I have seen no such data. Just the opposite.
I would point to the female astronauts, mathematicians, scientists, etc for some examples. It is true that throughout history women have a poor showing in intellectual fields. That however is from not having the chance to try, not because of a lack of ability. The most famous tailors in the world have primarily been men. Is that because men are naturally better equipped to sew? No, it is because women were busy sewing at home, and men were perfecting skills to make money. Men have also been the most famous chefs in the world, again, not because they are better equipped to cook. It is about having the chance to perfect a craft. You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff as us." When given the chance and the time, they are. The thing is, when a woman is married it is her job to be a multi-tasker. She cannot focus her energy in one field only. Even if she did, men are the ones in the public sphere, getting credit for their accomplishments. A woman could be brilliant at many things and no one would ever know. Now that you have women in these fields, you are seeing equality in ability. According to stats (since you seem to care so darn much) females perform far better than males in math and science in school today. Now, there is a whole heap of context that accounts for this, some of which is the public school system, but nevertheless, that's what the stats say.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
God decided that at the beginning of time, men would be physically more adept than women. What he did not do was create an intellectual deficit in women.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women
What Aquinas Really Said about Women
In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe...
He is welcome to think that, and considering that men were all taught philosophy, logic, Latin, and math in his day; while women were taught knitting, singing, and dancing, it is no wonder he was under that impression.
Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas' position on woman's intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities-we should love our own.
That is too rich. Considering that you are of the opinion that women are "made to serve man" (totally false, women are to be under the authority of their husbands, that does not have anything to do with women in general or why they were created) and that women are intellectually inferior, I wonder what littleness and inferiority you think you have to do deal with? Do you actually think there is some area in which God has granted greater abilities to women? How does that gel with men being better helpers in all things other than childbirth? All of the great saints talk about humility, that to become nothing is to become perfect. Women understand this concept just fine, we don't need your help. Most trad men of your ilk however, seem to spend their time figuring out how to diminish women, and explain how little and humble they should be. I think of a bit of time focused on trad men becoming humble and contemplating the obligations of their vocation would serve this forum well. Why the obsession?
St Thomas:
Quote
ST q.92, a.1, Reply to Objection 2: Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.
What St Thomas makes clear in the above quote was evidenced in Our Lord's day. Did He choose women to be apostles and disciples to endure the rigours involved and from whom authority is derived to govern His Church? No. How many females are doctors of His Church in which intellectual supremacy and rigour are demanded? Until 1970 there were none.
We see the place women held for Our Lord whilst He was on earth, in the scheme of His Divine plan and also in the governing of His Church once He departed earth for Heaven. His Mother and the holy women followed and served Him and His disciples.
We know the power His Mother had over Him at the time, has now and will continue to have for eternity. His first miracle was at Her tender appeal, precipitated by Her motherly concern for the wedded couple at Cana. Mary is the perfect example of virgin and mother, the two choices available to women. Those virgins or widows, who do not, for whatever valid reason, consecrate themselves to Christ, may well need to be employed or even enjoy a chosen career in fields not otherwise open to women in general, due to their duties of state. I am yet to be convinced a sporting career for any woman is a wise choice.
So, yes, it is lack of opportunity preventing women from careers in fields in which, granted, some have excelled, equalling or bettering their male counterparts . But that lack of opportunity is due to the fact that her Creator has other plans for her and endowed her with particular qualities best suited to His plan. It is He who is responsible for this 'lack of opportunity' and any objection to it should be directed towards Him.
QuoteWhat St Thomas makes clear in the above quote was evidenced in Our Lord's day. Did He choose women to be apostles and disciples to endure the rigours involved and from whom authority is derived to govern His Church? No. How many females are doctors of His Church in which intellectual supremacy and rigour are demanded? Until 1970 there were none.
St. Hildegrad.... St. Catherina of Siena... St. Theresa of Avila... St. Therese Liseux...
Oh sure, their works weren't valuable until the Vatican said so. Okay.
Not to mention all those female leaders in the Early Church, like Saint Phoebe and Saint Olympias... Maybe Saint Junia.
Quote
We know the power His Mother had over Him at the time, has now and will continue to have for eternity.
Why should His Mother have any power over Him, considering she was of an inferior nature?
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on November 16, 2019, 08:20:02 PM
Why should His Mother have any power over Him, considering she was of an inferior nature?
Evan an infant knows that inferiors have power over their superiors. Look at the power that children have to obtain things from their parents. Look at the power we have to obtain things from God.
Mary has the power to obtain things from her Son like at the Wedding Feast at Cana, not
despite her inferior nature, but
because of her inferior nature. All throughout the Gospels Jesus shows mercy towards the weak and the little and helpless, while He spurns the rich and the great and the powerful.
So it was back then, and so it remains today. Children receive blessing from their parents because they are small. So too do wives from their husbands. But wives who demand to be treated as equals lose all such privileges, and quickly become unhappy, angry, bitter and vengeful.
Quote from: Aeternitus on November 16, 2019, 08:07:08 PM
So, yes, it is lack of opportunity preventing women from careers in fields in which, granted, some have excelled, equalling or bettering their male counterparts . But that lack of opportunity is due to the fact that her Creator has other plans for her and endowed her with particular qualities best suited to His plan. It is He who is responsible for this 'lack of opportunity' and any objection to it should be directed towards Him.
This I agree with. God did give her other qualities, and He does have other plans. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is less intelligent than a man. The intelligence of either sex has nothing to do with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yikmP8KqeM8
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 08:54:05 PM
This I agree with. God did give her other qualities, and He does have other plans. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is less intelligent than a man. The intelligence of either sex has nothing to do with it.
A sex doesn't have intelligence.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 16, 2019, 01:10:07 PM
More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.
So you are quoting CC stating that the Gospel has placed women on a throne...hmm. Ok. You also quote St. Thomas saying that women are good for sex and breeding, but that men are better for all else. You also love quoting Tertullian and other fathers/patristics/etc on this issue. Make up your mind sir.
Firstly, women do have a great dignity, perhaps greater than man, being that she was created from man and not from dust. To be mother of all living things, and ultimately mother of the savior, her raw material had greater dignity than man's. This does not make her more intelligent, but it does give her a great dignity. (see The Return of Love)
Spiritual writers have looked at her, coming from the rib of Adam, to mean that she is is equal. Created from his side to be by his side, not from his head to rule over him, nor from his foot to be tread upon, but from his side. Women being subject to their husbands was a post-fall command. It forces a women to be humble, humility being the opposite of pride, which led to the fall. Throughout all of history there are more examples than you can count of intellectual, spiritual, and physical superiors being subject to authority that is weaker than them in intellectual acumen, spiritual life, or physical strength. It is good for all society to have a hierarchy and order. Someone needs to be in charge for things to run smoothly whether you are talking about a pot-luck or the moon landing. The leaders are not necessarily more intelligent, although obviously they can be, they are simply the leader. Authority and intellectual superiority do not go together by default.
Secondly, it is scandalous for you to cherry-pick quotes from patristics or anyone else that paint a women's role in the world and in the church is so terrible a light. Do you want women to walk away from the church? Do you want women to lose faith in their vocations? Rather than feeling like she is doing a beautiful worthy thing in loving her husband and raising her children, do you like the idea of women feeling like cattle and never-to-speak breeders? You should think about where this harmful pseudo-research you do is going.
In that article you pulled a few lines from, it specifically stated that Aquinas was hugely influenced by Aristotle; who thought women were a genetic accident. All sperm was supposed to lead to a male child, and if a female came out it was a defect of nature. St. Thomas was a speculative theologian, he applied human reason to Divine revelation to see what he could figure out about our faith and our world. He was brilliant, and he gave a gift to our church and to our pursuit of right thought which can never be discounted. He is however, allowed to be wrong sometimes. For you to quote him as saying that women are for breeding and men better for all else, is to do a huge disservice to him. He was so much more than that, but of course, you have to trot out his opinion on this to make everybody else feel like the argument is won. It is not. He used the quotes of St. Paul about wives, to apply to subordination by all women to all men, and then he assumes the reason for this is because of men having a higher intellect. You are allowed to disagree with this. Men being more intelligent than women is not dogma.
There are different meanings to the word equality obviously. That is part of the limit of human communication. When I say women are equal to men, I am saying that women have the same level of dignity, the same goodness of nature, and the same God-given intelligence as men. I am not saying that men and women should have the same level of authority in the home, I am not saying that female religious should not seek out guidance from holy men, and I am not saying a woman's proper place is in the corporate or academic world. I will continue to argue however, that this is because God has ordained her to be the heart of society and has given her a different calling than man, not because she is less intelligent.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 16, 2019, 08:49:13 PM
All throughout the Gospels Jesus shows mercy towards the weak and the little and helpless, while He spurns the rich and the great and the powerful.
So it was back then, and so it remains today. Children receive blessing from their parents because they are small. So too do wives from their husbands. But wives who demand to be treated as equals lose all such privileges, and quickly become unhappy, angry, bitter and vengeful.
This is very much to the point. Women are not subordinate to their husbands because they are weak, little, or helpless. They are subordinate because they are called to that place of humility, in order to bring order to the family home. By this logic a small, pale, weak man who makes half what is wive could, ought to be the subordinate. You are really getting off track here. If a 5' 10,' Germanic surgeon gives up her job to marry a 5' 6" Equadorian waste disposal coordinator and raise their children, it is really beautiful, and shows that she knows the value of a mother and wife in the home. She knows how important it is for her to allow her husband to lead. It has nothing to do with intelligence, physical strength, and smallness. For you to begin talking about the husband/wife relationship in parallel with the parent/child relationship is exactly the wrong understanding of the entire concept of Catholic marriage.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 07:24:14 AM
Women are NOT unequal to men. They have a different function in society, but that does not make them lesser, it makes them different. A cow and a horse have very different purposes, one is not "better" than the other.
Horses and cows are completely unequal. Most heifers cost about $1,000. A high-end, ancient breed cow might possibly go up to $5,000. For a horse, on the other hand, $5,000 would be low-end. Horses can be worth all the way up to the hundreds of thousands, even millions.
In a socialist fantasy land, "all animals are equal", but not in a real life with real animals.
You're not going to convince a farmer or a jockey that horses and cows are different, but equal, just as you're not going to convince the past 6,000 years of human history that women did not contribute less to society than men, they just had a different function.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff"
Of course you can.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 18, 2019, 06:53:17 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff"
Of course you can.
Biologically speaking, women will always be less exposed than men. They are the ones who get pregnant, and give birth, they raise the children. God has put a desire in almost all women to have children. God has put a desire in men to have women. This is the way the world works, it always will. Until we as a society rebel against biology and psychology en mas and decide to grow humans in artificial wombs, rewire men to not desire women, or rewire women's brains to hate children, this reality will persist.
What this reality means however, is that the female sex as a whole will always have less time/no time for the world, for academic pursuit. This means that we will not have lots of woman doctors, lawyers, scientists, inventors, etc. We won't have the base numbers, and we won't have the same number of experts as men because they have a large talent pool to choose from. Women are just now beginning to aim for STEM degrees. Most of the history of the world you are talking about involved women and men being completely academically ignorant. Men who were educated were taught math, science, logic, philosophy, and Latin. Women who were educated were taught music, dancing, and needlework. The world was not set up for women to pursue academics; and to do so was not only discouraged, but made impossible in most situations. St. Thomas More was famous/infamous for educating his daughters. Nobody thought it was a good idea or a worthy pursuit. When his educated daughters made their way into the social scene, noblemen were astonished at their intellectual acumen. Women who had time to study, like nuns, have made a very good showing in history. Think about the famous philosophers, doctors, lawyers, doctors of the Church, etc that you are talking about. They had access to education, women did not. There was no way women were going to be ranking in those fields at the same rate as men. To compare men and women in society at those times and say "see, women are not as good at men" is to show a total and utter lack of knowledge about society, history, and gender roles throughout human existence.
Quote from: queen.saints on November 16, 2019, 05:34:32 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 15, 2019, 04:32:20 AM
But what you see is not always what you get. Have you never met a woman who appeared kind, gentle and sweet in all her outward behaviours but who actually turned out to be malicious and manipulative underneath it all? Do you admit that the more submissive, shy, modest and retiring such a woman seems, the more likely it is that she will keep her true nature concealed?
No, I've never met someone like that. Those qualities are actually incredibly difficult to fake. The director of the movie "Junebug" had to deal with this problem when trying to find an actress who could play a genuinely good woman. Amy Adams was the only actress in the world who could play the part without coming across as false or ironic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081206021444/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/07/for_actress_amy_adams_role_was_a_turning_point/?page=2
Unfortunately, I have met quite a few people like that and in my experience, those qualities are easy to fake, especially for those who make it their business to fake them.
Shakespeare knew this.
"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of Holy Writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Richard III. (I, III)
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 18, 2019, 08:39:25 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 16, 2019, 05:34:32 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 15, 2019, 04:32:20 AM
But what you see is not always what you get. Have you never met a woman who appeared kind, gentle and sweet in all her outward behaviours but who actually turned out to be malicious and manipulative underneath it all? Do you admit that the more submissive, shy, modest and retiring such a woman seems, the more likely it is that she will keep her true nature concealed?
No, I've never met someone like that. Those qualities are actually incredibly difficult to fake. The director of the movie "Junebug" had to deal with this problem when trying to find an actress who could play a genuinely good woman. Amy Adams was the only actress in the world who could play the part without coming across as false or ironic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081206021444/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/07/for_actress_amy_adams_role_was_a_turning_point/?page=2
Unfortunately, I have met quite a few people like that and in my experience, those qualities are easy to fake, especially for those who make it their business to fake them.
Shakespeare knew this.
"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of Holy Writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Richard III. (I, III)
Oh they exist alright and apart from homewreckers they are the nastiest kind of women and other women usually being their target for malice. I think narcissistic personality disorder would be found in them and I might get slated for this but men are usually suckers for them.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 17, 2019, 11:37:39 AMIf a 5' 10,' Germanic surgeon gives up her job to marry a 5' 6" Equadorian waste disposal coordinator and raise their children, it is really beautiful
This is an impossible scenario for two reasons:
1. She is taller than him;
2. Women don't marry down the social scale. They can have affairs with men of inferior social status but not an actual marriage.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 18, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 17, 2019, 11:37:39 AMIf a 5' 10,' Germanic surgeon gives up her job to marry a 5' 6" Equadorian waste disposal coordinator and raise their children, it is really beautiful
This is an impossible scenario for two reasons:
1. She is taller than him;
2. Women don't marry down the social scale. They can have affairs with men of inferior social status but not an actual marriage.
Are you serious right now? I know that you may be living in a women-are-materialistic/vain-bitches fantasy land, but that is simply not true.
Plenty of beautiful women marry men you would not consider attractive at all. Plenty of tall women marry short tiny guys. I know four couples at least where the woman is tall and leggy and the guy is tiny and scrawny. One of these women is beautiful, has long shiny hair, perfect smile, etc. Her husband is short, fat, and prematurely grey. She loves him to death. They are very happy wives, and no, the men are not rich at all, in fact they are some of the more cash-strapped couples I know. Plenty of smart, successful women do marry blue-collar guys, not just in movies either. Now, most of these couples I know are trads, but that would only make sense, since in my scenario the women left work and raised her babies at home...this isn't your standard modern couple. I also know plenty of couples where they came from relatively equal places in terms of "social/physical currency." I would also point out (everyone please chime in here if your anecdote disagrees with mine) that the woman "slumming it" to have an affair with a delivery boy is very much a movie thing. Most of the affairs you hear about in real life are women sleeping with their bosses, their professors, etc. I get it if you are talking about really perverse one-night things, but long-term I don't find your point entirely accurate.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 07:25:58 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 18, 2019, 06:53:17 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff"
Of course you can.
Biologically speaking, women will always be less exposed than men. They are the ones who get pregnant, and give birth, they raise the children. God has put a desire in almost all women to have children. God has put a desire in men to have women. This is the way the world works, it always will. Until we as a society rebel against biology and psychology en mas and decide to grow humans in artificial wombs, rewire men to not desire women, or rewire women's brains to hate children, this reality will persist.
What this reality means however, is that the female sex as a whole will always have less time/no time for the world, for academic pursuit. This means that we will not have lots of woman doctors, lawyers, scientists, inventors, etc. We won't have the base numbers, and we won't have the same number of experts as men because they have a large talent pool to choose from. Women are just now beginning to aim for STEM degrees. Most of the history of the world you are talking about involved women and men being completely academically ignorant. Men who were educated were taught math, science, logic, philosophy, and Latin. Women who were educated were taught music, dancing, and needlework. The world was not set up for women to pursue academics; and to do so was not only discouraged, but made impossible in most situations. St. Thomas More was famous/infamous for educating his daughters. Nobody thought it was a good idea or a worthy pursuit. When his educated daughters made their way into the social scene, noblemen were astonished at their intellectual acumen. Women who had time to study, like nuns, have made a very good showing in history. Think about the famous philosophers, doctors, lawyers, doctors of the Church, etc that you are talking about. They had access to education, women did not. There was no way women were going to be ranking in those fields at the same rate as men. To compare men and women in society at those times and say "see, women are not as good at men" is to show a total and utter lack of knowledge about society, history, and gender roles throughout human existence.
This theory has been disproved in sports requiring intelligence rather than physical strength, such as chess. Men still consistently outperform women by an order of magnitude, despite both having had equal access to the game for centuries. Accounting for "participation rates" not only doesn't show a narrowing of the achievement gap between men and women, it shows a widening.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/explaining-male-predominance-in-chess
(https://en.chessbase.com/Portals/all/thumbs/039/39801.jpeg)
"Rather than fretting about inequality, perhaps we should just gracefully accept it as a fact." Nigel Short, Grandmaster
Quote from: Maximilian on November 15, 2019, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on November 13, 2019, 12:33:52 AM
Relating back to an earlier post, the Weston Price Foundation claims that a traditional diet can alleviate many of today's fertility problems. I remember the 1960s and 70s when people ate twice as much meat as they do today. Men and women took traditional roles, yes, but just as significantly both men and women were strong, vigorous and cheerful.
This reminds me that in Japan they use the phrase "herbivore" to refer to young men who find relationships with girls mendokusai (troublesome) and who are incapable of producing a new generation of Japanese.
Some theories as to why testosterone levels are falling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N11tqwVrhZo
Quote from: queen.saints on November 18, 2019, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 07:25:58 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on November 18, 2019, 06:53:17 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 16, 2019, 03:42:31 PM
You cannot look at history and say "look at all the male doctors, lawyers, writers, etc...women are obviously not as good at this stuff"
Of course you can.
Biologically speaking, women will always be less exposed than men. They are the ones who get pregnant, and give birth, they raise the children. God has put a desire in almost all women to have children. God has put a desire in men to have women. This is the way the world works, it always will. Until we as a society rebel against biology and psychology en mas and decide to grow humans in artificial wombs, rewire men to not desire women, or rewire women's brains to hate children, this reality will persist.
What this reality means however, is that the female sex as a whole will always have less time/no time for the world, for academic pursuit. This means that we will not have lots of woman doctors, lawyers, scientists, inventors, etc. We won't have the base numbers, and we won't have the same number of experts as men because they have a large talent pool to choose from. Women are just now beginning to aim for STEM degrees. Most of the history of the world you are talking about involved women and men being completely academically ignorant. Men who were educated were taught math, science, logic, philosophy, and Latin. Women who were educated were taught music, dancing, and needlework. The world was not set up for women to pursue academics; and to do so was not only discouraged, but made impossible in most situations. St. Thomas More was famous/infamous for educating his daughters. Nobody thought it was a good idea or a worthy pursuit. When his educated daughters made their way into the social scene, noblemen were astonished at their intellectual acumen. Women who had time to study, like nuns, have made a very good showing in history. Think about the famous philosophers, doctors, lawyers, doctors of the Church, etc that you are talking about. They had access to education, women did not. There was no way women were going to be ranking in those fields at the same rate as men. To compare men and women in society at those times and say "see, women are not as good at men" is to show a total and utter lack of knowledge about society, history, and gender roles throughout human existence.
This laughable theory has been disproved in sports requiring intelligence rather than physical strength, such as chess. Men still consistently outperform women by an order of magnitude, despite both having had equal access to the game for centuries. Accounting for "participation rates" not only doesn't show a narrowing of the achievement gap between men and women, it shows a widening.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/explaining-male-predominance-in-chess
(https://en.chessbase.com/Portals/all/thumbs/039/39801.jpeg)
"Rather than fretting about inequality, perhaps we should just gracefully accept it as a fact." Nigel Short, Grandmaster
Ok sweetheart, lets get right to the point here.
Pointing out that men are better at chess is just fine. Perhaps they are. All that shows is that men have a better capacity for chess. They are endowed as a sex with greater abilities in that which leads to successful chess playing. Analytics perhaps? Problem solving? That is all possible. This still (I am getting exhausted now) does not prove that men were created more intelligent as a whole than women. It proves that God gave men greater capacities in some areas than women, just as he gave women greater capacities in some areas than men. Having different intellectual strengths just makes sense. We are here to fulfill different roles. I would argue that not only did God give men and women different capacities, but that He gave them the desire (in general) to pursue those paths that work to their capacities best.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 18, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 17, 2019, 11:37:39 AMIf a 5' 10,' Germanic surgeon gives up her job to marry a 5' 6" Equadorian waste disposal coordinator and raise their children, it is really beautiful
This is an impossible scenario for two reasons:
1. She is taller than him;
2. Women don't marry down the social scale. They can have affairs with men of inferior social status but not an actual marriage.
Are you serious right now? I know that you may be living in a women-are-materialistic/vain-bitches fantasy land, but that is simply not true.
I'm living in the real world where the effects of original sin are omnipresent and where nature dictates the behavior of men and women when it comes to coupling, not mere idealism and make-believe. Vanity exists in both sexes and attraction isn't a choice. Your scenario of the Germanic female surgeon leaving everything behind her out of her own accord in order to marry a shorter and poorer Ecuadorian waste disposal coordinator could, perhaps, constitute a mediocre plot for a romantic novel but it doesn't translate into real life.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:12:14 PMPlenty of beautiful women marry men you would not consider attractive at all. Plenty of tall women marry short tiny guys. I know four couples at least where the woman is tall and leggy and the guy is tiny and scrawny. One of these women is beautiful, has long shiny hair, perfect smile, etc. Her husband is short, fat, and prematurely grey. She loves him to death.
Anecdotal evidence that doesn't correspond to the well-established traits of human sexual behavior and reproductive choices. While there can be occasional exceptions to the two points I mentioned earlier, due to some sort of external conditioning, the rule stands because it conforms to human nature and psychology.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 18, 2019, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 18, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 17, 2019, 11:37:39 AMIf a 5' 10,' Germanic surgeon gives up her job to marry a 5' 6" Equadorian waste disposal coordinator and raise their children, it is really beautiful
This is an impossible scenario for two reasons:
1. She is taller than him;
2. Women don't marry down the social scale. They can have affairs with men of inferior social status but not an actual marriage.
Are you serious right now? I know that you may be living in a women-are-materialistic/vain-bitches fantasy land, but that is simply not true.
I'm living in the real world where the effects of original sin are omnipresent and where nature dictates the behavior of men and women when it comes to coupling, not mere idealism and make-believe. Vanity exists in both sexes and attraction isn't a choice. Your scenario of the Germanic female surgeon leaving everything behind her out of her own accord in order to marry a shorter and poorer Ecuadorian waste disposal coordinator could, perhaps, constitute a mediocre plot for a romantic novel but it doesn't translate into real life.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:12:14 PMPlenty of beautiful women marry men you would not consider attractive at all. Plenty of tall women marry short tiny guys. I know four couples at least where the woman is tall and leggy and the guy is tiny and scrawny. One of these women is beautiful, has long shiny hair, perfect smile, etc. Her husband is short, fat, and prematurely grey. She loves him to death.
Anecdotal evidence that doesn't correspond to the well-established traits of human sexual behavior and reproductive choices. While there can be occasional exceptions to the two points I mentioned earlier, due to some sort of external conditioning, the rule stands because it conforms to human nature and psychology.
Do you make exceptions to this total adhesion to normal human behavior? What about traditional Catholics? Don't you think their understanding of the sacred nature of marriage and commitment to life-time coupling makes them choose differently? I appreciate your stance, that this comes from basic human behavior/desire. However, if you take single people in small communities where very few of them are really physically attractive, none of them are rich, and all of them have the same 12th grade education, what behavior do we see? Considering the fact the for millennia, most marriages were arranged, I would argue that money was a factor, but nothing else. Father's weren't looking to get hotties for their sons, they were looking to get fat dowries. Father's wanted their daughters to marry-up financially, but looks and and strength would not have come into it. I guess I am drawing a line between what we want at our most instinctual and what we want when other, higher considerations are made, or our fantasy partner doesn't appear. You were saying "women don't do this or that." I am saying that even if they wouldn't, had they listened their most primal voice, they do, because women, especially trad women, rise above things. Also, at the end of the day, people who want to marry, want to marry, and they are not going to wait around forever. A women who might have planned on marrying a really good-looking rich guy, will marry a nice, decent looking guy who works hard, when no one else shows up. What our biological programming tells us to do and what we actually do are two very different things. I mean, monogamy for one, goes against basic human instinct.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:53:34 PM
Do you make exceptions to this total adhesion to normal human behavior?
No, why should I? All humans share the same core physiological and psychological traits within a restricted degree of variance.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:53:34 PMWhat about traditional Catholics? Don't you think their understanding of the sacred nature of marriage and commitment to life-time coupling makes them choose differently?
Religion can certainly force one to choose A over B given the right circumstances but it cannot change the inherent physiological responses of the individuals and the nature of attraction. Your example of the German female surgeon dropping everything for a shorter and poorer Ecuadorian man is comically absurd and does not represent in anyway a valid observation of reality from which we can derive knowledge. While there are always anecdotal exceptions, like the ones you mentioned, they are statistically irrelevant.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:53:34 PMI appreciate your stance, that this comes from basic human behavior/desire. However, if you take single people in small communities where very few of them are really physically attractive, none of them are rich, and all of them have the same 12th grade education, what behavior do we see?
We generally observe that if, given the choice, women will always look for men who are physically attractive, in which case height is one of the decisive factors, and who project social status among the group. On the other hand, men, if given the choice, will always look for women who are physically attractive, in which case round hips, big breasts and a pretty face are also decisive factors. This is the root level of attraction which is instinctive and can't be deprogrammed by social constructs or any other sort of peer pressure. Of course, there's also the mental aspect of attraction that enables relationships to develop in a meaningful way and to be sustained over time but without the basic physical level of attraction that underlies it all, nothing can realistically develop without interference from outside forces (arranged marriages, social pressure to reproduce,
etc.).
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:53:34 PMYou were saying "women don't do this or that." I am saying that even if they wouldn't, had they listened their most primal voice, they do, because women, especially trad women, rise above things.
Trad women can't rise above their own nature. No-one can. They can settle for less than they would initially want, but so can any other woman. It's the nature of human society: we need compromises in order to survive.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:53:34 PMA women who might have planned on marrying a really good-looking rich guy, will marry a nice, decent looking guy who works hard, when no one else shows up.
All this proves is that people can adapt and settle. However, it doesn't say anything about the nature of sexual attraction that governs human interaction. A woman will only accept a man with inferior social status than her, and physically shorter, if she is forced to it by the circumstances of life. Nevertheless, what she is innately attracted to cannot be changed. She can adapt and even develop genuine feelings for said man but he will never represent the masculine prototype that she is literally wired to be attracted to by nature. The highly successful and financially independent woman that you presented in your far-fetched example won't settle for the Ecuadorian man in any realistic scenario. This is what I objected to, it's a mischaracterization of life based on romantic idealism. To say otherwise, is to engage in an anthropological fairy tale that serves no purpose.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:53:34 PMI mean, monogamy for one, goes against basic human instinct.
Polygyny is socially workable. Polyandry, not so much.
I agree with you that, statistically speaking, both men and women end up feeling attracted to various partners throughout their lives, whether or not they consummate those relationships. My point had to do with being realistic about what generally makes men and women desire one another and derive knowledge from it, instead of presenting absurd examples as representative of reality.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
This still (I am getting exhausted now) does not prove that men were created more intelligent as a whole than women. It proves that God gave men greater capacities in some areas than women, just as he gave women greater capacities in some areas than men.
The list of intellectual activities in which women predominate ... ?
I'm not coming up with any. Men predominate in
every area of intellectual activity, as far as I can see. Perhaps you could provide a list those intellectual fields you have in mind where over the centuries women have dominated over men.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 18, 2019, 04:33:28 PM
Your scenario of the Germanic female surgeon leaving everything behind her out of her own accord in order to marry a shorter and poorer Ecuadorian waste disposal coordinator could, perhaps, constitute a mediocre plot for a romantic novel
Not even "mediocre." The consumers of romance novels are 99% women, and they would never buy a book like that. You wouldn't sell even 1 copy. No woman fantasizes about this kind of relationship. Such a relationship could never happen because it would never be imagined in the first place by the woman.
Quote from: Maximilian on November 18, 2019, 07:56:54 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2019, 04:27:21 PM
This still (I am getting exhausted now) does not prove that men were created more intelligent as a whole than women. It proves that God gave men greater capacities in some areas than women, just as he gave women greater capacities in some areas than men.
The list of intellectual activities in which women predominate ... ?
I'm not coming up with any. Men predominate in every area of intellectual activity, as far as I can see. Perhaps you could provide a list those intellectual fields you have in mind where over the centuries women have dominated over men.
"Over the centuries" is exactly the point. We are just now experiencing women attending university as a given, as a social norm. Higher education for women is brand new in the grand scheme of things. I could say "give women a few centuries in university education and see what happens." That would be arguing for something I don't believe in though. I don't think that is a good idea. I think everyone really should avoid university if possible. I think women should avoid it especially. Considering that most women will get married and have children, it only makes sense that she pursue high level academics on a free/self-guided bases. You don't want to be saddled with debt. I also don't think women should necessarily spend their most fertile/energetic years studying if they want to be wives/mothers. Spend those years establishing your family instead. I don't need women to prove that they have the same intellectual acumen as men. It does stand to reason however, that they do. There is no God-given proof that they don't. He never thought intellect was worth talking about period.
I think it is funny that trad men slag feminists. I can't count the number of times I've heard "the problem with feminism is that they don't want to be equal, they insist that they are better." Yes, yes they do, because they are weak, vain, and proud. That is what weak, vain, proud people do.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on November 18, 2019, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 17, 2019, 11:37:39 AMIf a 5' 10,' Germanic surgeon gives up her job to marry a 5' 6" Equadorian waste disposal coordinator and raise their children, it is really beautiful
This is an impossible scenario for two reasons:
1. She is taller than him;
2. Women don't marry down the social scale. They can have affairs with men of inferior social status but not an actual marriage.
Your first point is incorrect because as coffee and cigarettes has posted and as I have also observed more than once, tall women do marry short men.
And your second point is questionable, since all that's required is a little imagination.
For example, suppose the tall, female, German surgeon is looking for meaning in her life and decides to spend a couple of years helping the poor in somewhere like Equador. She finds herself in the middle of a local dispute between a corporation which is dumping toxic waste in the river and the local population which is campaigning against it.
The short, Equadorian, refuse disposal coordinator - c&c did say coordinator - actually manages an established and successful waste disposal company started by his grandfather. He is also a leading campaigner against the corporation. The tall, German surgeon joins the campaign, falls in love with him and, after seeing off the corporation, they live happily ever after.
I think this would sell.
Here are 3 threads from the past where the same subject was discussed:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=7809.msg165939#msg165939
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=7907.0
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=17139.0
And here is a classic from one of those threads:
https://youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w
Quote from: queen.saints on November 12, 2019, 09:41:45 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: Innocent Smith on November 12, 2019, 02:41:41 AM
So the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant is concerned with young men born XY competing in girl's sport at the high school and college level. Why?
I think it's great that the trannies are wrecking this for women as women should not be competing in team sports that mimic what were traditionally known as male or individual sports like wrestling that were once the exclusive domain of boys and men. Nor do I think it right that girls sometimes make it on to the boy's football teams. We've had a number of girls do that at our local high school over the years.
One of the biggest concerns by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in the recent article at Church Militant is the following:
Quote"It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner's podium, and to receive critical scholarship."
Good I say. Women shouldn't be getting scholarships for competing in sports and neither should any male that is in a sport that doesn't produce revenue for the school. Why should normal students, you know the ones paying full price to receive an education, be subsidizing non-revenue producing sport? Tuition is high enough.
What happened to parents instructing young women in things like home economics? I would think most Catholics would value a girl being able to mend socks, sew a button, and cook than head a soccer ball into a goal. Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't it also make sense that girls imitating boys in sports activities were the original gender-benders? I say turnabout is fair play!
Girls should be supporting boys in sports by attending games and cheering for them. Then they may have a chance of becoming suitable wives one day rather than competing with their husbands in other areas and learning to provide nurturing environments in their future homes for their families.
What is also delicious about this "problem" is that it took women having the vote for these issues to come home to roost in the first place. To quote Cardinal Dolan one time talking about a football player who came out as a homosexual I say, "bravo!".
Either way, I think this topic should be of far greater concern to Traditional Catholics than women wearing pants.
Don't you?
Here is a link to the article.
POLL: AMERICANS OPPOSE TRANSGENDERS IN SPORTS (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/poll-americans-oppose-transgenders-in-sports)
But the conservative Catholic media outlet Church Militant thinks transgenders are stealing from women. I don't think they thought this one through too well. Do you?
First bold segment. According to this logic men should only be taught how to make a wage, build a house, and raise animals..whatever. Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Studies show that even simple activities like lifting heavy objects boost testosterone enormously. When boys engage in masculine activities like sports and thus become more masculine themselves, they are absolutely preparing for their vocation which will necessarily be masculine as well.
Quote
Second bold point. Absolutely NOT.This is a big problem for a few reasons. One, there is a modesty concern. Two, if it is not intellectually appropriate for a women to play sports because wanting to win will make her masculine and ruin her gentle nature ( I am paraphrasing from previous threads on this topic) than how can it be intellectually appropriate to want to see a win, want to see the other team defeated, etc. Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
This is also a problem for family life. You get junior playing sports, he goes to practice a few nights a week, special gear, blah blah, and then the whole family and of course the girls, come to cheer and watch and praise. What female equivalent is there for the girls in the family? When is the whole family going to sit and cheer for the daughter weekend after weekend. Not only does this imbalance nurture sibling resentment, (brother is a boy therefor he gets to do fun stuff and mom and dad cheer him on and act like he is amazing...I get to do nothing and nobody cheers for me ever) but it builds up sports and athletics as a goal to which young trad boys should aspire. Do we want that? Do you want our boys aiming to be NFL players or what have you?
"Making boys feel good about themselves." Yes, exactly. This is one of the many benefits of boys playing sports. Brothers being cheered on by their sisters, far from nurturing resentment, nurtures familial affection. What nurtures resentment is the attitude that there needs to be an "equivalent" supplied for every good enjoyed by one sibling that cannot be enjoyed by another, rather than an attitude of being happy for others.
One of the SSPX seminarians in Virginia at the moment was an all-Ireland hurling champion before he joined the seminary, another was a high school state football champion. There's a former Manchester United professional soccer player who's now a priest and trying to revive the traditional Dominican-rite in the Indult. Athletics were a perfectly healthy aspiration for these men that lead them to even higher aspirations.
"in the indult" :lol:
thanks queensaints, that takes me back to 2005 when people talked that way. It was a simpler time......
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on November 12, 2019, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Playing sports was a male occupation because it was developed and encouraged as an actual study of war. It was study for their job. Grown boys and men running around playing sports now is purely recreational, so do not equate a girl preparing for a vocation to boys playing games.
Historical falsehood. The Greeks cared more about winning the Olympics than they did about winning wars.
Even as late as St. Augustine around the year 400 AD, he still used the Greek dating system of counting years by the Olympiads. So this was their foundational belief, just like we date our years from the birth of Christ.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on November 12, 2019, 07:43:41 AM
Oh...is it because she is cheering on boys, and making them feel good about themselves...? Got it...
Sarcasm is not an argument. Women are created by God to be helpmates to men. Girls who are cheering for boys and "making them feel good about themselves" are preparing themselves for their life's vocation.
Making a man feel good about himself by cheering while he runs after a ball is NOT a women's vocation. Supporting him as a husband and father, respecting him, and building love, honor, and trust for him in the minds on one's children is her vocation. The pride and worth a man feels in his vocation, the times when he feels "good about himself," should come from doing the will of God and raising his family for heaven...not playing a game and fueling his ego. Sports are all about pride and self-image. I agree with Awkward, if men really want to make sure they are super masculine and pump their bodies with testosterone, they should be clearing a few acres of land, stacking a rick of wood a day, or walking/hiking through nature.
I am late to this thread, but I also disagree with the idea that having a girl (especially your sister) "cheer you on" builds up a man's sense of self worth. I'm blessed to have a wife that's crazy about me, 2 wonderful sisters and a mom who loves me to the point where it's embarrassing, but there's nothing they could say or do to build up my sense of self worth or masculine dignity. For most teenage boys, you could have 1000 cheerleaders and it still wouldn't make as seeing their dad in the audience and hearing "you make me proud."