Posted on 05/23/2003 7:29:29 AM PDT by robowombat
The default mode of thought in women is not rational, it's emotive. Criminals and philanderers are interesting and mysterious – that's the key. It's irrelevant that they offer no real future
Brilliant.
There's a saying from some older culture to the effect that the quickest way to destroy a rival society is to ruin its women. It's a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman. I think the author misses the point here. No one picked up on this. But when you have a culture of women coarsened as described above, they make terrible wives and mothers. They don't teach their daughters (who will be the arbiters of the relationships they form with men) to have lofty ideals, to fear God or to be good friends. The only thing they know is getting whatever they can out of life--by hook or by crook. This makes for the next generation being quite short-changed.
Not to digress, but it's no wonder the rational takes back seat to the emotive--the educational system fosters just this approach. Consider a typical "thought" question: You are a slave at Jefferson's Monticello. What do you think about his idea that 'all men are created equal?'" While it is true that thinking is becoming more and more emotive, it still remains a particular trait of the debased woman.)
I didn't follow the Laci thing, but from what little I know she appeared to be a happy young wife and was not disordered. It's very sad. Sometimes bad things do happen to good people. Not true of Nicole, whose life was tragic, but it sounds as if her value system was quite scewed as the women mentioned in the article.
Double standards abound, but the real tragedy is that the standards, they are a-changing to be anti-standards. The only resistance to this is to remember that the ends don't justify the means, to think for the long-term over the short-term and to espouse holy ideals.
Sad as these twisted people have, with significant support from the left, made great progress in destroying the family.
No, no, never believe this. Feminism is inherently evil. There can never be a "good" feminism anymore than there can be a good Marxism. In its root and branch, from its origin, in all of its works, in all of its resulting death, depravity and destruction, feminism is evil. Here is what pope Pius XI said to those who thought you could have a "good" socialism (just replace "socialism" with "feminism" and the same argument holds):
One section of Socialism has sunk into Communism. Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: Unrelenting class warfare and absolute extermination of private ownership. Not secretly or by hidden methods does it do this, but publicly, openly, and by employing every and all means, even the most violent. To achieve these objectives there is nothing which it does not dare, nothing for which it has respect or reverence; and when it has come to power, it is incredible and portentlike in its cruelty and inhumanity. The horrible slaughter and destruction through which it has laid waste vast regions of eastern Europe and Asia are the evidence; how much an enemy and how openly hostile it is to Holy Church and to God Himself is, alas, too well proved by facts and fully known to all.The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate... The question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way.
And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.
It is also a lie put out by certain feminists that the original founders of the feminist movement were "pro-life." Read this article by Carol Iannone to find out more about these original founders:
Feminism has no Moderate Side
Here's an excerpt:
"It was here that the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments" was signed, setting forth the ideals of the women’s rights movement... Much of the Declaration smacks of today’s "Feminazism" — owing less to the American Founding than the French Revolution, redolent less of 1776 than its own year, 1848, the year in which the Communist Manifesto was first published.Think of the "consiousness-raising sessions" of the feminist movement of the sixties and seventies. There is a direct line from the Hegelian view of history to the Communist Manifesto to the Feminist movement.The Declaration advances a Marxian view of the total oppression of one sex by the other from the beginning of time, proclaiming that the "history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." Also Marx-like, it portrays the curious willingness of woman to cooperate in her own "social and religious degradation" as a type of false consciousness imposed on woman by man.
If Pia de Solenni is a "Christian feminist," check out post #46.
Excellent point. We can see it happening all around us. The upcoming generation of girls are incredibly coarsened already. I think the author would agree with you. When she said, "a dictum undoubtedly coined by some man who probably didn't begin to grasp the stunning magnitude of the self-destructive instinct that is so much a part of Collective Woman," I think she was referring to exactly what you described, although this sentence wasn't very clear.
How many of them will have twentieth anniversaries?
Being married is different from having a boyfriend that won't dump you.
This is exactly the type of hair-splitting that Pope Pius XI spoke against. No matter how you slice it "socialism is utterly foreign to a Christian conception of life." And feminism even more so, since human life is even more basic than economics and property.
She is a courageous and true defender of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church
I'm sure this may be true, although I've never heard of her. She may be honest and sincere. But she's misguided if she thinks she can be a "Christian feminist." And if she thinks that she is doing this in order to win over the feminists, she's equally misguided. Pope Pius XI specifically condemned that approach. We can only win them over by presenting to them the fullness of Catholic truth in all its entirety. There can be no such thing as "meeting them halfway."
I'm inclined to agree that word feminism itself has so many connotations that trying to redefine it is not a good idea. But to imply that anyone who supports the idea of a "Christian feminism" is not faithful to Catholicism is ludicrous. I am sure you are well aware that the current Pope has spoken many times about "a new feminism".Perhaps the Pope isn't quite Catholic enough?
JOHN PAUL II ADVOCATES "NEW FEMINISM" NOT BASED ON "MACHO" MODELSAffirms Woman's Decisive Role in Defense of Life and Democracy
VATICAN CITY, MAY 19, 2000 (ZENIT.org).- This morning John Paul II called for the promotion of a "new feminism" free of "macho" categories and stressed that at this time "women have a singular, and perhaps determinant, place in thought and action in defense of life and democracy. The Holy Father expressed these thoughts when he received the students and professors of the "Auxilium" Faculty of Educational Sciences, an institution headquartered in Rome and dedicated especially to the support of woman, as inspired in Don Bosco's pedagogy.
The Pope said that the key to achieve the objective of giving woman the space that corresponds to her is the promotion of "a plan of man and woman rooted in the Christian vision of life." "The human being, man and woman, is an image of God, not only as an intelligent and free being, but also as a relational being, who finds truth and the fullness of his own realization in communion and the gift of self."
Life and Democracy Threatened
"In face of the threats against life, both the daily ones as well as the ones programmed scientifically and systematically, which challenge the very meaning of democratic coexistence, it is necessary to apply enlightened and wise educational proposals, creative and shared plans," continued John Paul II. And these proposals call for "the rediscovery and promotion of the profound, interior human dimension of integral education enlightened by the evangelical view."
In this "cultural change in favor of life, women have a singular, and perhaps determinant, space for thought and action. It is for them to become promoters of a 'new feminism' that, without falling into the temptation of pursuing 'macho' models, can recognize and express the authentic feminine genius in all the manifestations of civil coexistence, overcoming all forms of discrimination, violence and abuse," stressed the Pope.
"The challenge to which you are called consists in giving the anthropological view of the person man-woman, according to God's plan, and of translating it into adequate pedagogical categories that are scientifically valid," he concluded.
You are quite right. Perhaps is has something to do with those 70 hour workweeks. :)
2. A world which makes such an absolute option for efficiency, a world which so approves of a utilitarian logic, a world which for the most part thinks of freedom as an absolute right of the individual and conscience as a totally solitary, subjectivist court of appeal, necessarily tends to impoverish all human relations to the point of considering them finally as relations of power, and of not allowing the weakest human beings to have the place which is their due.From this point of view, utilitarian ideology heads in the direction of machismo, and feminism becomes the legitimate reaction against the exploitation of woman.However, so-called feminism is frequently based on the same utilitarian presuppositions as machismo and, far from liberating woman, contributes rather to her enslavement. When, in line with the dualism just described, woman denies her own body, considering it simply as an object to be used for acquiring happiness through self-fulfillment, she also denies her own femininity, a properly feminine gift of self and her acceptance of another person, of which motherhood is the most typical sign and the most concrete realization.
When woman opts for free love and reaches the point of claiming the right to abortion, she helps to reinforce a notion of human relations according to which the dignity of each one depends, in the eyes of the other, on how much he is able to give. In all of this, woman takes a position against her own femininity and against the values of which she is the bearer: acceptance of life, availability to the weakest, unconditional devotion to the needy. An authentic feminism, working for the advancement of woman in her integral truth and for the liberation of all women, would also work for the advancement of the whole human person and for the liberation of all human beings. This feminism would, in fact, struggle for the recognition of the human person in the dignity which is due to him or her from the sole fact of existence, of being willed and created by God, and not for his or her usefulness, power, beauty, intelligence, wealth, or health. It would strive to advance an anthropology which values the essence of the person as made for the gift of self and the acceptance of the other, of which the body, male or female, is the sign and instrument.
It is precisely by developing an anthropology which presents man in his personal and relational wholeness that we can respond to the widespread argument that the best way to fight against abortion would be to promote contraception. Each of us has already heard this rebuke leveled against the Church: "It is absurd that you want to prevent both contraception and abortion. Blocking access to the former means making the latter inevitable". Such an assertion, which at first sight seems totally plausible, is, however, contradicted by experience: the fact is that generally an increase in the rate of contraception is paralleled by an increase in the rate of abortion. The paradox is only apparent. It must be noted, in fact, that contraception and abortion both have their roots in that depersonalized and utilitarian view of sexuality and procreation which we have just described and which in turn is based on a truncated notion of man and his freedom. It is not a matter of assuming a stewardship that is responsible and worthy of one's own fertility as the result of a generous plan that is always open to the possible acceptance of unforeseen new life.
It is rather a matter of ensuring complete control over procreation, which rejects even the idea of an unplanned child. Understood in these terms, contraception necessarily leads to abortion as a "backup solution". One cannot strengthen the contraceptive mentality without strengthening at the same time the ideology which supports it, and therefore without implicitly encouraging abortion. On the contrary, if one develops the idea that man only discovers himself fully in the generous gift of himself and in the unconditional acceptance of the other, simply because the latter exists, then abortion will increasingly be seen to be a senseless crime.
An individualistic type of anthropology, as we have seen, leads one to consider objective truth as inaccessible, freedom as arbitrary, conscience as a tribunal closed in on itself. Such an anthropology leads woman not only to hatred of men, but also to hatred of herself and of her own femininity, and above all, of her own motherhood.
More generally such an anthropology leads human beings to hatred of themselves. Man despises himself; he is no longer in accord with God who found his human creation to be "something very good" (Gn 1:31). On the contrary, man today sees himself as the destroyer of the world, an unhappy product of evolution. In reality, man who no longer has access to the infinite, to God, is a contradictory being, a failed product. Thus we see the logic of sin: by wanting to be like God, man seeks absolute independence. To be self-sufficient, he must become independent, he must be emancipated even from love, which is always a free grace, not something that can be produced or made. However, by making himself independent of love, man is separated from the true richness of his being and becomes empty.
Opposition to his own being is inevitable. "It is not good to be a human being" - the logic of death belongs to the logic of sin. The road to abortion, to euthanasia and the exploitation of the weakest lies open.
You said it, not me. Anyone, even if he's the pope, who promotes feminism in anyway, is undermining Catholic practice and belief. One might also point out that in this news report he is saying that feminism is important for the defense of democracy, neither of which the Church should be supporting.
Notice that he refers to an "authentic feminism" as a speculative thing that doesn't actually exist. So he does not pretend that any really existing feminism is anything other than destructive.
But it is incredibly imprudent for someone in Ratzinger's position to speculate about the potential existence of an imaginary "authentic feminism." This is precisely the kind of sloppy thinking and ambiguous expression that would never have seen the light of day from the magisterium before Vatican II.
It is precisely by developing an anthropology which presents man in his personal and relational wholeness that we can respond to the widespread argument that the best way to fight against abortion would be to promote contraception.
Here is where Ratzinger reveals his dangerous and un-Catholic mindset. He participates in the Hegelian approach to post-conciliar theology. It is heresy to say that the Church can only respond to an evil if it develops a new anthropology. No, the Church does not need to develop any new anthropology. It needs to teach the truth of unchanging Catholic doctrine. Contraception and abortion are both intrinsically evil, and so they are both opposed to the truth. To demonstrate the abyss between the truth of Christ and the evil of contraception and abortion requires only a knowledge of the perennial theology possessed by every generation of the Church from the Apostles 2000 years ago until today.
Only in today's corrupted hierarchy could the man with the obligation to defend Catholic dogma make such an outlandish statement in which he claims that Catholic teaching cannot be defended without the aid of a non-existent anthropology.
Sorry if you're getting pinged to any articles that don't interest you. I don't remember what made me put you on the list, it was a long time ago. But please just let me know and I will remove you immediately.
The other day I happened to hear a group of these gals chatting among themselves. They were all divorced with kids. They were absolutely white-hot indignant that they were meeting single guys who bolted when they found out that the women had kids. These gals had an attitude of "how dare you not want to take responsibility for me and the kids I had with my previous bad-boy husband?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.