Author Topic: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?  (Read 4813 times)

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Thanked: 3519 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #90 on: November 15, 2019, 12:08:27 PM »

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: bigbadtrad

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least twice a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1200
  • Thanked: 434 times
  • Saint Francis Borgia, pray for us
  • Religion: Doubting Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #91 on: November 15, 2019, 05:47:05 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.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2019, 05:50:27 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus, coffeeandcigarette, bigbadtrad

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2104
  • Thanked: 1461 times
  • Religion: Creed-affirming, sacramental, Yahweh-worshipping Christian Gnostic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #92 on: November 15, 2019, 06:42:54 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.
 

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3194
  • Thanked: 1614 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #93 on: November 15, 2019, 06:56:32 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.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2019, 06:58:10 PM by awkwardcustomer »
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus, coffeeandcigarette, bigbadtrad

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least twice a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1200
  • Thanked: 434 times
  • Saint Francis Borgia, pray for us
  • Religion: Doubting Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #94 on: November 15, 2019, 09:38:04 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
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • The Prodigal Son, except I do it at least twice a week
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1200
  • Thanked: 434 times
  • Saint Francis Borgia, pray for us
  • Religion: Doubting Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #95 on: November 15, 2019, 09:38:35 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.
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Thanked: 3519 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #96 on: November 15, 2019, 10:08:55 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.


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.


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.


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.


Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy.

Of course you are.


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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Graham, Aeternitus, queen.saints, bigbadtrad, Davis Blank - EG

Offline Davis Blank - EG

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 989
  • Thanked: 1356 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #97 on: November 16, 2019, 12:16:04 AM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: queen.saints, bigbadtrad

Offline bigbadtrad

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • Thanked: 845 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #98 on: November 16, 2019, 05:36:52 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 07:18:49 AM by bigbadtrad »
"God has proved his love to us by laying down his life for our sakes; we too must be ready to lay down our lives for the sake of our brethren." 1 John 3:16
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier, Davis Blank - EG

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3194
  • Thanked: 1614 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #99 on: November 16, 2019, 06:41:07 AM »

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.


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.


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.


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.


Don't misunderstand me - I'm not doing the Association or Continuum Fallacy.

Of course you are.


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.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 07:01:13 AM by awkwardcustomer »
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Thanked: 193 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #100 on: November 16, 2019, 08:24:14 AM »

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.

 
The following users thanked this post: awkwardcustomer

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3194
  • Thanked: 1614 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #101 on: November 16, 2019, 11:44:49 AM »
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.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2104
  • Thanked: 1461 times
  • Religion: Creed-affirming, sacramental, Yahweh-worshipping Christian Gnostic
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #102 on: November 16, 2019, 12:13:33 PM »
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.
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Thanked: 3519 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #103 on: November 16, 2019, 01:20:21 PM »

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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Aeternitus

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Thanked: 193 times
Re: What's Worse? Women Or Transgenders In Sport?
« Reply #104 on: November 16, 2019, 01:43:55 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.