Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on January 17, 2013, 06:12:07 PM
-
The following is from Tradition In Action, but this sounds more like Feminsm In Action to me:
http://traditioninaction.org/Questions/F059_University.htm
First message:
Dear Sir,
Recently it has come to my attention that a certain Roman Catholic traditionalist bishop named Bishop Richard Williamson, has written an article stating that True Roman Catholic Universities are not for True Roman Catholic Girls! Yet in the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have been so PROUD to have women attend their universities for the purposes of learning there and teaching there!
However, Bishop Williamson has now written an article explaining why it is contrary to Roman Catholic Natural Law and Scholastic Philosophy to admit even True Roman Catholic women, however learned or saintly, to attend even true Roman Catholic Universities for the purposes of learning and teaching there! You can now read it here. And if that weren't enough, I have attached an additional file AGAINST ROMAN CATOLIC WOMEN IN ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES.doc.
In fact, scholar James J Walsh says:
Feminine education did not spread in the West of Europe in the Middle Ages. The reason for this failure of a precious phase of educational evolution was undoubtedly the Héloïse and Abélard incident. Apparently Paris in the 20th century was about to follow Italy in this university tradition of opportunities for women, when this scandal seriously disturbed the West. As most of the western universities, Oxford, Cambridge and the French and Spanish universities, as also those of south Germany, were founded mainly under influence from Paris, the West received a distaste, amounting to positive distrust, for feminine education. {153} So small an incident as this changed the course of history.
Note that this excerpt comes from a Roman Catholic Author, James J Walsh M. D., Ph.D., Sc. D., etc., who in the 1930s, wrote this tract for the express purpose of Catholic Apologetics! He testifies that the scandal concerning Héloïse and Abélard did more than anything else to PREVENT feminine education from spreading further!
If Bishop Williamson had this fact in his hands, he would certainly use this as an irrefutable proof that:
Under the prevailing terms and provisions of Catholic Natural Law and Canon Law as they stood until they were evaded by the innovations and heresies instigated by the Vatican II conciliarist heretical cartel calling itself the Novus Ordo mass Roman Catholic Church, sending Roman Catholic Women to Roman Catholic Universities for the purposes of learning there or teaching there is DELETERIOUS to the modesty and purity of the sexes!
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM [this is what has to be proved]
J.J.
Second message:
Dear Dr. Horvat,
On the Daily Catholic, I noticed this.
In the Bishop's letter against Girls at University, he explains three natural reasons why it is AGAINST the scholastic philosophy of Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Natural law for True Roman Catholic girls to attend True Roman Catholic Universities. Yet 100 years ago, we found almost NO Roman Catholic Apologetic making the arguments that this Bishop has made! On the contrary, they have always BOASTED that the Roman Catholic Church, as the true exalter and friend and champion of Womankind and patroness of learning, has FREELY promoted the attendance of women at Roman Catholic Universities.
You only need to look at the lives of St. Hildegarde, Maria Agnesi, Clotilda Tambroni, Novella D'andrea, Elena Piscopia Cornaro, Betissia Gozzadini, who all attended or taught at Roman Catholic Universities, without even the LEAST remark from the Catholic Church that these women were transgressing against Natural Law - to realize that the accusations of those protestant sassenach orangemen bigots who accuse the Roman Catholic Church of teaching that "True Roman Catholic girls are not for True Roman Catholic Universities" is blatantly false and malicious!
What do you think of this? Please notify Dr. Atila Guimaraes. Please notify him as soon as you receive this message. I would like his e-mail address. I would also like you to check up on him to see whether or not he has read my message and the file attached. If not, then please send him a copy of EVERY message I have sent you - just to make sure he receives them.
Love,
J.J.
Dr. Horvat responds:
Dear J.J.
Mr. Guimaraes is out of the country for two weeks. I am sure he will respond when he will return, although I am not certain when, as he will be catching up with many e-mails and other matters.
Cordially,
Dr. Marian Horvat
The Editor responds:
Dear J.J.,
I thank you for your e-mail and for your consideration in asking TIA for an answer to your question.
Bishop Richard Williamson certainly deserves respect for being a valid Successor of the Apostles and for the important and good orientation he has given many people regarding the evils of Progressivism that have taken over the Church after the last Council.
Even in the 2001 letter you pointed out in your e-mail, he makes many good points when he repeats three principles St. Thomas taught on the role of woman in the church, the home and society. Also, the basic difference he sets out between the missions of the husband and the wife in the family reflects, as much as I can see, Natural Law and the teachings of the Church. The general corruption of customs on today's campuses, principally when students of both sexes live in residence halls at the universities, is a sad reality that must be avoided at any cost as an occasion of sin. Finally, I also agree with the Prelate when he combats feminism, which increasingly has encouraged women to assume masculine roles almost everywhere in social, political and economic careers.
Out of touch with reality
I am much more reticent in agreeing with His Excellency, however, when he pretends to represent the mind of the Church by issuing a diktat forbidding women to go to universities. Some general statements / syllogisms of his letter did not convince me, such as these:
“Women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times;”
“True universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls;”
“University thinking needs to be objective, outward, rational, abstract, large-scale, with a drive towards the grand principles. Her thinking follows her heart. University thinking can only follow the head.”
In these texts, as in his entire argument, His Excellency departs from the presupposition of a university as it existed in the Middle Ages and was described by Card. John Newman: an ensemble of disciplines wisely distributed around philosophy and having theology as their queen. I like this distribution of subjects very much, and I also believe that every human science and knowledge should be ordered toward the glory of God.
What is surprising to me, however, is that His Excellency did not seem to realize that this concept of “true university”- which was valid in the Middle Ages and was still present in some medieval institutions until the two great World Wars - does not apply to the reality around us today.
Characteristically feminine jobs taught at universities
Nowadays, almost every knowledge, profession or practice has been elevated to the university level, including many subjects that are characteristically feminine. For instance, home economics, which is how to manage a home, is the object of a college degree; interior decoration is taught in architecture colleges; how to deal with children is taught in pedagogy departments. These topics are entirely proper to a woman’s nature and are closely related to her first concerns - her home and children.
If a woman wants to become more distinguished, she may take some languages courses at a university. If she wants to become more cultured, she may go to a fine arts college to study music, painting, sculpting - either in theory or practice -- or to take a course of history or general culture.
If a woman wants to be a nurse or a high school teacher, traditional occupations of Catholic nuns in the past, today she needs college degrees for that.
In these subjects I do not see anything that per se opposes feminine nature. Consequently, I believe a woman may go to a college for such purposes.
Jobs that may be exercised indifferently by both sexes
There are other professions that can be exercised either by a man or a woman. Some examples among many include: pharmacist, dentist, journalist, translator, photographer. Does per chance a pharmacist need to be a man? Perhaps a man would be better to manage the business, but I would say that a woman's precision in following a recipe for a cake serves her well to prepare a medicinal prescription. Why should a dentist or dental technician be a man and not a woman? Either of them can clean your teeth equally well. I agree that, on one hand, the man is stronger to pull a tooth, but, on the other hand, a woman is more careful about the patient's pain. Thus, there are pros and cons that may be discussed, but there is no verdict that necessarily determines dentistry must be exercised by a man. I could continue on in various professions and give examples for each case.
It is my opinion that a woman should not work, but take care of her home and children. But, if she is not married or she cogently needs to work, none of these professions per se will necessarily harm her feminine nature. She may go to the university with peace of conscience and take her degree in order to carry out her métier.
Jobs characteristically masculine
In those professions that are typically masculine, I agree with His Excellency. I give a few examples: military officer, policeman, surgeon, electronic technician, construction engineer. Insofar as courses for such professions are taught in universities, I believe that as a rule a woman should not put her foot in them.
Conclusion of the analysis
In conclusion, it is my opinion that His Excellency was too generic and theoretical. His “true university” does not exist today. What exists is a different reality - there are colleges for many things that are or can be justifiably feminine. He did not take this reality into consideration. Therefore, his conclusion - girls should not go to the university because it violates the feminine nature - is baseless.
Notwithstanding, I believe that due moral precautions must be taken, as he mentions, to avoid occasions of sin and the revolutionary feminism present in universities today.
Here you have my analysis of Bishop Williamson’s article. I hope it will alleviate your affliction.
Cordially,
Atila S. Guimarães
Posted January 8, 2013
-
I am much more reticent in agreeing with His Excellency, however, when he pretends to represent the mind of the Church by issuing a diktat forbidding women to go to universities.
Did Bishop Williamson forbid women to go to the university and say the mind of the Church says women should never go to the university?
Either of them can clean your teeth equally well. I agree that, on one hand, the man is stronger to pull a tooth, but, on the other hand, a woman is more careful about the patient's pain.
This is very weak. I notice he didn't touch the question of women studying for an MD.
I think Atila is trying to hedge because he knows he has a lot of female readers who won't go along with what he said.
Bishop Williamson did say there were exceptions, but that he didn't want to make the exception the rule.
The problem with sending women to the university is that they lack critical thinking and tend to conform to the socially dominant mindset in a place.
Sending young Catholic women to the university is the spiritual equivalent of the Children's Crusade.
-
Could Attila be a little biased... working in the same office with Dr. Marian Horvat every day?
Of course some women should receive advanced degrees, but I took Msgr. Williamson to be refering to the mainstream and on this point, he's right.
Today, where would a young American woman go for an education and not become corrupted?
The novelist Tom Wolfe's book, I am Charlotte Simmons, held the mirror up to America and detailed our extremely corrupt educational system.
(http://p1.storage.canalblog.com/11/60/110219/21197735.jpg)
Wolfe became anthema with the universities after writing this novel.
He showed how the college system purposely indoctrinates and is immerses everyone into modernism. No one graduates uncorrupted.
Let me go a step further...
How did this all happen?
It appears our elder brother rabbis have put much thought into changing the future of society and mankind...destroying Christendom and taking us away from God.
It's all part of ushering in the anti-christ.
Exhibit A. Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion's Dream:
(http://www.godlikeproductions.com/external?http%3A%2F%2Fmailstar.net%2Fbengur62.jpg)
Ben Gurion Dream (http://p1.storage.canalblog.com/11/60/110219/21197735.jpg)
-
Msgr. Williamson's lectures on the roles and relationships between Men and Women contain mostly common sense.
We've been so indoctrinated (judaized) that it is hard for us to even imagine the sane world he is describing.
After the Chastisement, we will come to our senses.
God will be first in our lives.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Chw6p09Redo/S2HixQ1vGwI/AAAAAAAABME/-bG_coZqMMw/s320/FirstHolyCommunion1953_900.jpg)
Women will be Wives and Mothers and Men will be good Husbands and Fathers.
(http://www.salvos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dinner-time-5-300x198.jpg)
-
It's heartening to see that not all Catholic fathers are foolish in the way that seems to be typical among Novus Ordites and Fellayists.
-
In fact, I am reading a book on Medieval education at the moment. It is called The Envy of Angels, published in 1994 and sympathetically written. Now, this is admittedly an argument from silence, but women simply did not figure into educational ideals anywhere, courtly or ecclesiastical.
The suggestion that a woman can and should go to college/university to learn how to teach her children and decorate her home is pretty funny, and not deserving the time or effort of a refutation. It seems to be acting as a wedge. Get traditional women in there 'learning to decorate' first, then drive the wedge further, and further.
You can even watch her work the wedge a bit: start with home decorating, end with teaching careers for secular women. Next she'll have single secular women teaching classes of boys, because that's "today's reality", or even at universities, because that's "more distinguished" and hey, they're not real universities anyway.
Hate to brandish the slippery slope argument here, but I have enough experience with women to know how they work. You'll hear the same appeals to some ill-defined "reality" from pre-teen girls who want cellphones and facebook.
Why are women going to learn foreign languages when they don't even know how to knit or bake? Let's get our priorities straight.
-
I think a lot of people do not realize how many prerequisites and general education courses are needed to complete a degree. I needed philosophy credits and took exact the same ethics course that was mandatory for nursing students. Our first lesson was about moral relativism and how infanticide (by smothering newborns) in Eskimo cultures where food is scarce was justified. (Ethics, Steven Kahn...we skipped the chapter on St. Thomas Aquinas of course) the professor described the sweet babes as either suffering and starving to death...or "gently" being put to sleep by their desperate mothers.
-
I think a lot of people do not realize how many prerequisites and general education courses are needed to complete a degree. I needed philosophy credits and took exact the same ethics course that was mandatory for nursing students. Our first lesson was about moral relativism and how infanticide (by smothering newborns) in Eskimo cultures where food is scarce was justified. (Ethics, Steven Kahn...we skipped the chapter on St. Thomas Aquinas of course) the professor described the sweet babes as either suffering and starving to death...or "gently" being put to sleep by their desperate mothers.
I think those people do realize it PW, they just consider social acceptance to be more important than the Catholic Faith.
One has to wonder: how many of these second and third generation trads are going to have the kind of families their parents did?
Not a large percentage - and it's because of the values of their parents. They prefer to be flattered for empty achievements than to be scorned for being integrally Catholic and actually putting those values first.
-
I think a lot of people do not realize how many prerequisites and general education courses are needed to complete a degree. I needed philosophy credits and took exact the same ethics course that was mandatory for nursing students. Our first lesson was about moral relativism and how infanticide (by smothering newborns) in Eskimo cultures where food is scarce was justified. (Ethics, Steven Kahn...we skipped the chapter on St. Thomas Aquinas of course) the professor described the sweet babes as either suffering and starving to death...or "gently" being put to sleep by their desperate mothers.
She talks about "taking a language course". Meanwhile, some of the trad girls are taking science and marketing degrees. It's practically a cover-up. And isn't that the standard MO for women? Always in advance of where they'll admit, always aiming to spring the fait accompli, always preparing a justification well in advance.
-
Atila is a woman?
-
Atila is a woman?
Excuse me, I thought it was Marian Horvat who wrote it.
-
I'm convinced that the university - while often conferring some degree of knowledge in certain fields, leads generally to a darkening of the intellect and a loss of spirituality.
The ѕυιcιdє of the Catholic family is to send its children, its best blood, to a place to be indoctrinated and quite possible abused for the gratification of its worst enemies.
-
Succinctly put:
College for women is entirely futile and can cost them their souls.
Women do not have logical minds which can sift the lies to the extent that they can refute the garbage fed to them in lectures, and in the books they have to read to complete the course.
There is no reason for women to attend college.
College also presents grave moral problems for women.
Both these points apply to men as well, and are good reasons why men also should avoid college.
But at least a man stands a better chance of seeing through the wicked lies, because men have more logical minds than women.
Therefore, some men may actually leave college with their Catholic Faith intact.
Ideally, traditional Catholic men would not attend college.
But women should certainly avoid college.
Catholic parents: do not allow your daughters to fall into sin because of college, and thereby deserve Hellfire.
-
Ah, this is why I love CatholicInfo. The responses on this thread will be few and far between on any of the other "Traditional" forums.
Sede, that is an excellent point. People are in serious danger of losing their soul if they attend college.
A college degree is NOT necessary for women.
-
The other thing to consider is that a man that is college age is still developing mentally and physically. Still maturing.
A young woman in college doesn't have to accomplish much of anything to be highly sought after. She's already at the peak of her social power, and is sought after because of it, while not having the wisdom to know how to handle it. So for women college is not about being uplifted. It's mainly about vanity and courtship and vice, those are in fact the main draws of college for women.
-
Ah, this is why I love CatholicInfo. The responses on this thread will be few and far between on any of the other "Traditional" forums.
Sede, that is an excellent point. People are in serious danger of losing their soul if they attend college.
A college degree is NOT necessary for women.
Thank you, Servus.
This is the main objection to women going to college: if women attend college, it can lead to their damnation.
-
Fathers and mothers need to understand that their daughters' eternal souls are at stake.
-
...for women college is not about being uplifted. It's mainly about vanity and courtship and vice...
Yes, and vanity is possibly the main reason out of those given by Tele.
The vanity, in part, is a desperate attempt to be intellectually on the same level as men.
Yet another dark result of the evils of Feminism.
-
Have any of you the experience of actually living on a college campus? I do. I wasn't a drinker/partyer type but EVERYONE else was. And the...how can I put this delicately....the "swapping" that went on, smoking, very loud hip hop thug music, drugs, crime.............
This was at a small midwestern COMMUNITY COLLEGE for pete's sake. Even if your daughter isn't doing these things herself, trust me, she is sharing a room with another young woman who comes in drunk at 3 am and is inviting guys in for some very noisy activities. Or she's being propositioned by other females to engage in sodomy. And the RM's don't do a thing about it.
Maybe you should consider an online university.
-
I'm a young trad Catholic woman attending college right now.
Colleges, as stated in a different thread, ARE cesspools of sin. I think that it is risky to send ANYBODY there, male or female, particularly if they plan to stay in the dorms, or share an apartment with a secular roommate.
I live about half an hour away from the state university, which is the only university in the state that offers an animal science degree. As far as I'm aware, only state universities do. I commute- so I get there at about 7:15 and leave anywhere between 5 and 8 PM, depending on when classes end. Mostly, I stay to myself. I go to class and then find a quiet place to study.
If anything, my faith has strengthened, not wavered, under this arrangement. I see the sin that goes on around here for all its ugliness. I tend to be a "loner" anyway- social activities, even wholesome ones, are extremely irritating to me, and I avoid being around any occasions of sin. Are classes dangerous? They can be, but I am the type of person who takes A LOT of convincing that something is a good idea- I am not swayed very easily at all. I think I generally see things for how they are and tend to think in black and white.
Please don't take this comment to be hostile- but what do you mean when you say that women aren't as intellectual as men? Of course, many aren't, but the men I've seen are not usually any more so. I'm not sure that I understand why women and men are treated as separate species. We are biologically different, and yes, we do have different talents and aptitudes, in general. But I don't think that women are as weak intellectually as is being presented here. Is there something wrong with a woman who likes intellectual subjects? I am fascinated by science and love genetics, theriogenology (science of animal reproduction), animal anatomy and physiology, endocrinology, biochemistry...and I perform very well in these subjects, usually much better than most men. Is there something morally wrong with having a very deep interest in these areas, and consequently studying them? Especially when she is unlikely to have a marriage vocation? In fact, if I did marry, I would still wish to be involved in the livestock industry and would seek a husband who is at least as interested in these subjects as I am. It's that big of a deal to me. God gave me these interests and I should be using them somehow.
Maybe I am in the minority on this, but just some thoughts. My belief is that if an environment is dangerous for a woman's soul, than it's dangerous for a man's. Men who have the fortitude to withstand it are in the minority as well. I don't see this as being a feminine issue so much as a college in general issue.
-
The problem with sending women to the university is that they lack critical thinking and tend to conform to the socially dominant mindset in a place.
I would not send a daughter away from home to attend a secular university but I disagree with your statement that women specifically lack critical thinking.
-
The other thing to consider is that a man that is college age is still developing mentally and physically. Still maturing.
A young woman in college doesn't have to accomplish much of anything to be highly sought after. She's already at the peak of her social power, and is sought after because of it, while not having the wisdom to know how to handle it.
I agree with this. I was just going to post another question. There is always a big debate about college or not but why almost no discussion about activities before college? What I don't see except in a handful of families is a mindset of guarding our teen's chastity before they are adult/college age.
-
I'm a young trad Catholic woman attending college right now.
Colleges, as stated in a different thread, ARE cesspools of sin. I think that it is risky to send ANYBODY there, male or female, particularly if they plan to stay in the dorms, or share an apartment with a secular roommate.
I live about half an hour away from the state university, which is the only university in the state that offers an animal science degree. As far as I'm aware, only state universities do. I commute- so I get there at about 7:15 and leave anywhere between 5 and 8 PM, depending on when classes end. Mostly, I stay to myself. I go to class and then find a quiet place to study.
If anything, my faith has strengthened, not wavered, under this arrangement. I see the sin that goes on around here for all its ugliness. I tend to be a "loner" anyway- social activities, even wholesome ones, are extremely irritating to me, and I avoid being around any occasions of sin. Are classes dangerous? They can be, but I am the type of person who takes A LOT of convincing that something is a good idea- I am not swayed very easily at all. I think I generally see things for how they are and tend to think in black and white.
It's a wonderful thing that you're able to resist the temptation to engage in the vice that is predicated by the arrangement of secular, co-educational university, but that's not really the entire point. Being around it constantly can breed contempt in the heart, and despair that, with so many behaving in such a way, what is the likelihood that one will be able to find a traditional spouse that hasn't engaged in it to some degree, or that will carry the stain of exposure to it?
Please don't take this comment to be hostile- but what do you mean when you say that women aren't as intellectual as men?
This is a general stereotype, and such things exist because they are generally true. Woman are, first and foremost, creatures of emotion. Even in the exercise of a profession, they tend to be more emotional than pragmatic. Am I wrong that your own attraction to veterinary medicine is the result of a desire to nurture animals that are sick or wounded?
Of course, many aren't, but the men I've seen are not usually any more so.
That's because men are being indoctrinated to be, in terms of emotion, cogitation and action, women. They are encouraged to feel, not think, and to abandon their God-given place in dominion by abdication of knowledge and wisdom.
I'm not sure that I understand why women and men are treated as separate species. We are biologically different, and yes, we do have different talents and aptitudes, in general. But I don't think that women are as weak intellectually as is being presented here.
Because they, in terms of how they think and act, are different species. In the lesser genera, action is predicated by instinct, and one's classification of a species can be founded as much upon behavior as morphology. Men and women are so dissimilar in temperament and reasoning that they might as well be from different planets, which I suppose is the inspiration behind the title of a rather famous book on the subject of man/female dissimilarity.
It is not impossible that women can be the intellectual equal or even superior of a man. As you say, God gives each person faculties according to His will. However, if one accepts that faculty is granted by Divine Providence for man's perseverance in grace, then it must follow that those faculties must be such that it allows them to discharge their intended state, whether married or religious, with the greatest efficiency and harmony. There exist among women so few intellectuals because such faculties are not needed for the discharge of her most natural duties, i.e. a wife and mother. Indeed, where a woman is concerned, intelligence seldom, if ever, walks hand-in-hand with the modesty and humility that befits a Catholic woman, and which she wears as the dual crowns of her wife- and motherhood. Can you honestly say that, among those intellectual women with whom you've associated, that the environment is not one of concerted and enthusiastic man-bashing, and the cultivation of near-obsession to prove that they are "better" than their male colleagues? In my experience, this has been universal.
Knowledge in and of itself Is there something wrong with a woman who likes intellectual subjects? I am fascinated by science and love genetics, theriogenology (science of animal reproduction), animal anatomy and physiology, endocrinology, biochemistry...and I perform very well in these subjects, usually much better than most men. Is there something morally wrong with having a very deep interest in these areas, and consequently studying them? Especially when she is unlikely to have a marriage vocation? In fact, if I did marry, I would still wish to be involved in the livestock industry and would seek a husband who is at least as interested in these subjects as I am. It's that big of a deal to me. God gave me these interests and I should be using them somehow.
In and of itself, I do not believe intellectual curiosity to be a morally bad thing and, indeed, it can be a wonderful thing, provided it does not hinder one in the execution of the state for which God has intended one to live, or the discharge of the same. Does genetics or theriogenology or organic chemistry teach you how to be a faithful wife and loving mother? I don't see how it could. One concern I have is that you give undue precedence to your interests. Your occupation is something that you do, not for your enjoyment, but for your chastisement as a daughter of Adam sharing in the effects of original sin. That isn't to say that you can't take a measure of personal pride in executing your occupation with skill and sobriety, but it isn't meant to be entertainment. If you are a called to the married state, then being a wife and mother must take perpetual and absolute precedence over all other roles which you may exercise. In such an instance, you are a wife and mother and work as a veterinarian. The first is in your nature, the second is the merely the specialized exercise of faculty.
Maybe I am in the minority on this, but just some thoughts. My belief is that if an environment is dangerous for a woman's soul, than it's dangerous for a man's. Men who have the fortitude to withstand it are in the minority as well. I don't see this as being a feminine issue so much as a college in general issue.
Oh, secular education is unfit for any soul bearing the name Catholic. But education, properly conducted in an environment where men can study together without the distraction of temptation is something that will allow a man to execute that which is in his nature: that of provider and head of household.
-
Please don't take this comment to be hostile- but what do you mean when you say that women aren't as intellectual as men?
Not to be curt, but I should say it’s pretty obvious what it means.
I will just relate my own experience which leads me to agree with it. I am a man of somewhat above average intelligence. At 15 my IQ was professionally measured at 138. I say this to set a point of reference. Whatever our views on IQ testing, and I do not put great stock in it, we have to admit that it indicates something about the subject’s intelligence. People whom everyone agrees are stupid will test low; people whom everyone agrees are smart will test high. Just like the woodworker’s dictum “if it looks straight, it is straight”, a general impression of someone’s intelligence is in most cases more useful than a laborious attempt to quantify it.
I have personally interacted with hundreds of men more intelligent than me. Men from all walks of life, from tradesmen to academics. John Grey, who just responded, is an example ready to hand. On the other hand, I can fairly distinctly remember most of the women more intelligent than me. There have not been many, all things considered. Wiser than me, more virtuous than me? The field grows exponentially.
When we speak of women and education, we are talking about two things. First, we are talking about general ‘quantitative’ differences. Men are generally more intelligent, and more consistently calm and objective than women. This has been held “always and everywhere, by everyone,” as per the Scholastic truth-heuristic.
Second, we are talking about the fulfillment and deepening of our God-given roles. PereJoseph put it well, a few months ago, when he said something to the effect that a woman knows she is not made for a public or intellectual role by the fact that she is born a woman. In this second respect, that you may be more intelligent than X number of your male peers is of no interest. You are not a man, for you manliness is a vice, the desire to emulate men (qua men) a perversity; you are to be and to become a woman.
That is not a command to be stupid. In previous discussions, some posters have confused the need to keep women out of university with a malicious desire to keep women stupid. Ironically, a rather stupid interpretation, where bookish education is disingenuously exalted as the sine qua non of intelligence and culture. Man is to have a companion; if all he needed and wanted were a dumb load-bearing animal, God would not have created Eve.
I do take you to be in good faith and genuinely asking. So I hope my remarks have been somewhat helpful and that you did not find them insulting or patronizing. To other readers, I want to point something out. The tendency to try to diminish the intellectual differences between men and women is always implicitly a rebellion against the proper order of the sexes, defined by Scripture and Tradition, since the more intelligent is naturally the master.
Maybe I am in the minority on this, but just some thoughts. My belief is that if an environment is dangerous for a woman's soul, than it's dangerous for a man's. Men who have the fortitude to withstand it are in the minority as well.
You are correct. However there may be necessary and sufficient reasons for men to attend modern university that do not exist to nearly the same extent for women. And I think it evident that young women are more social and suggestible and less independent than young men (who are also very suggestible). For one example, ask your priest how many young women he knows who have come to Tradition independently. Ask him how many young men.
-
I have personally interacted with hundreds of men more intelligent than me. Men from all walks of life, from tradesmen to academics. John Grey, who just responded, is an example ready to hand.
Thank you, sir, but I believe you overestimate me or underestimate yourself. I've found our exchanges personally edifying, even when I have disagreed with your conclusions, because they've helped my cultivate my ability to think in that I've always believed that intelligence, true intelligence, is not in the rote of fact but in the ability to sift information efficiently, to make connections that are not immediately apparent, and to effectively apply to abstract knowledge to practical situations. I admit, with all thanksgiving to God, that I possess a measure of this ability but I do not conceive myself being overly wealthy among those do.
Whatever the case, thanks again for the compliment. :cheers:
-
Second, we are talking about the fulfillment and deepening of our God-given roles. PereJoseph put it well, a few months ago, when he said something to the effect that a woman knows she is not made for a public or intellectual role by the fact that she is born a woman. In this second respect, that you may be more intelligent than X number of your male peers is of no interest. You are not a man, for you manliness is a vice, the desire to emulate men (qua men) a perversity; you are to be and to become a woman.
This needs to be told, repeatedly, to girls during their formative years. So many see their gender in an unflattering light. For a modernist woman, any connotation or expression of inequality is unconscionable and humiliating. That a woman is normitively physically weaker and more diminutive, that the physical expression of her femininity (menses) places her in a place of periodic vulnerability, that they are, as you say, generally less apt at logical thinking than men, is something that they cannot tolerate. So, rather than become men (though some sodomite women take fair stab at trying) they try redefine the concept of woman to be just another kind of man.
The state of womanhood belongs to women; establishing the nature of womanhood belongs to God. He, not man, has defined what it is, how it behaves, what crowns it in glory and what debases it.
-
but I disagree with your statement that women specifically lack critical thinking.
It's my experience that men, particularly intellectually inclined men, are more intelligent, generally speaking, than most women, and more thoughtful.
I'm pretty sure that's the general experience of humanity according to the things I've read.
You're a bright woman Tiffany, so I'm sure you're inclined to see things differently.
-
Even men, of course, should be very cautious about going to a university. I think that if someone wants a degree, earning it online is the way to go.
But I agree that it is far more dangerous for a woman to go to college.
-
Please don't take this comment to be hostile- but what do you mean when you say that women aren't as intellectual as men? Of course, many aren't, but the men I've seen are not usually any more so. I'm not sure that I understand why women and men are treated as separate species. We are biologically different, and yes, we do have different talents and aptitudes, in general. But I don't think that women are as weak intellectually as is being presented here. Is there something wrong with a woman who likes intellectual subjects? I am fascinated by science and love genetics, theriogenology (science of animal reproduction), animal anatomy and physiology, endocrinology, biochemistry...and I perform very well in these subjects, usually much better than most men. Is there something morally wrong with having a very deep interest in these areas, and consequently studying them? Especially when she is unlikely to have a marriage vocation?
Men and women have have similar averages but different distributions of IQ. More women have IQs clustered around average, while more men have IQs at both extremes. This means there are more male morons than female ones. It also means there are more male geniuses than female. Here is an article that explains it in detail: IQ distribution (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is) This is why most people experience that the smartest people they know tend to be men. One is not likely to run into the stupid men from the other end of the spectrum because they tend to be institutionalized.
It is not simply a matter of IQ. There are many intelligent women, but this intelligence tends to be directed towards practical matters. The ideal of the Catholic university has theology as the "queen of sciences" with philosophy as "her handmaid". We are talking about a lot of abstract and theoretical thinking. Only a minority of men are suited for this and even fewer women.
Of course, you are going to real university not an ideal one, so this is of limited relevance to you. You do not expect to marry and so you are pursuing training in a field of interest in order to support yourself. You are succeeding academically. You have taken steps to reduce to spiritual dangers involved by living at home and limiting your socializing. There is no indication that you are doing anything morally wrong. My impression is that your behaviour is commendable.
However, I recommend that you seek counsel from a priest who knows you and your situation. There are many spiritual dangers involved (as you say, to both men and women) and you need to determine if, in your case, it is worth the risk. Attending college is not a decision to make lightly.
-
The problem with sending women to the university is that they lack critical thinking and tend to conform to the socially dominant mindset in a place.
I would not send a daughter away from home to attend a secular university but I disagree with your statement that women specifically lack critical thinking.
In my experience, the vast majority of people of both sexes lack critical thinking. I know so few people who are competent at this that I cannot say if there are more men than women or vice versa.
-
Indeed, where a woman is concerned, intelligence seldom, if ever, walks hand-in-hand with the modesty and humility that befits a Catholic woman, and which she wears as the dual crowns of her wife- and motherhood. Can you honestly say that, among those intellectual women with whom you've associated, that the environment is not one of concerted and enthusiastic man-bashing, and the cultivation of near-obsession to prove that they are "better" than their male colleagues? In my experience, this has been universal.
I very much appreciated your insightful post. I agree with your observation here and wish to speculate on the cause. Most intellectual women attend university and are exposed to some of the worst manifestations of feminism leading to man-bashing behaviour. They are also systematically trained to be competitive even if that is not in their nature. They are also encouraged to develop intellectual pride and to look down on others. (This last happens to men as well.)
-
The Bolshevik (Jєωιѕн) Frankfurt School in Germany
targeted American universities to become cesspools of modernist, revolutionary indoctrination.
In 1923, it was Lenin's solution to undermining Catholic culture.
The following article in is from the Angelus Press.
After digesting this, the reader will understand why our "elder brothers" can't be trusted... with anything.
July 2006Print
The FRANKFURT SCHOOL: Cultural Revolution
Arnaud de Lassus
In general terms, one can identify two types of Revolution. First, there is political revolution: the gaining of power through violence and the use of terror. The revolutions of 1789-93 in France and of 1917 in Russia provide a good illustration of this type. Second, there is cultural revolution in which one demolishes from within the basis of civilization in the country one wants to conquer–its culture, way of life, beliefs, morality, scale of values, etc. It is a long-term action undertaken without visible violence by applying the formula: "Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness."[1]
Why is it important to study the process of cultural revolution, which is generally less known than that of political revolution? Becaue it shows itself to be particularly effective in Catholic countries. Poland gives us a typical example of this: Here is a country that for 50 years had resisted Marxist political power and, in spite of it, had preserved its religion and its morality. However, within a few years of a cultural revolution arriving from the West, morality and customs were penetrated by anti-Christian influences and were adapted to Western standards, which has made us fear a rapid de-Christianization of the country.[2]
Cultural revolution is not a new phenomenon. Joseph de Maistre, at the beginning of the 19th century, characterized it as follows:
"Until now, nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion. But here an important question arises: can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is?"[3]
The cultural revolution has been systematized particularly since the 1920s, following an initiative of Lenin and the creation of what was called the Frankfurt School. We propose to produce some basic information about this initiative and the Frankfurt School, and to demonstrate how they contributed powerfully to the counterculture which triumphs today.
Marx and the Freemasons
In 1843, some five years before the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote to a friend:
"Here is what we have to accomplish: ruthless criticism of all that exists. Ruthless in two ways: the criticism should neither be afraid of its own conclusions nor of the conflicts with the powers that be."
Ruthless criticism of all that exists: by this he meant not only politics, religion, law and family, but all the elements of Western culture. These ideas of Marx corresponded with those brought into play by the Freemasons at the same time. It will suffice to quote two texts by members of the Italian Alta Vendita.[4]
To propagate light, it is both fit and useful to set everything which aspires to move in motion. The essential thing is to isolate men from their families, to make them lose their morals. [Piccolo Tigre [5] (1822) [6]]
Catholicism is no more afraid of the sharp dagger than are monarchies; but these two bases of social order can collapse by corruption: let us therefore never grow tired of corrupting. Pervert hearts and you will have no more Catholics. [Vindice [7] (1838) [8]]
After the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marxism concentrated on political and economic action. Its attack on Western culture moved on to the second phase. It was not until the 1920s that we saw Marxists methodically taking up again Marx's ideas of 1843.
Communist Failures and the Cultural Revolution Project
After the October Revolution in Russia, one of Lenin's ideas had been to export revolution to Central and Western Europe in order to save it in Russia. It was a failure. Revolution almost failed in Russia, but was saved thanks to American financial support. It failed in Hungary, too, where Bela Kun in 1919 was not able to maintain a Communist regime for more than 133 days. It failed in Germany, where the Spartacus League, founded in 1916, organized an uprising in Berlin in 1919, which was fiercely suppressed. It failed in Italy, where Communist parties and unions were subjected to a crushing defeat by the ex-Socialist Mussolini.
Reflection on these failures led to conclusions regarding methodology. First, Marx had predicted that industrialization would lead to intolerable conditions for the working classes and the elimination of the lower middle class. These predictions were shown to be erroneous. The increase in productivity improved the quality of life of all classes. Second, it became clear the proletariat could never be the tool to overthrow the industrialized West and allow importation of revolution there. Third, it was necessary to abandon any idea of a frontal assault against the bourgeoisie and capitalism in the developed countries of the West. Fourth, the West could only be overthrown after destruction of its living strength through the treason of intellectuals.
Thus, Communists were led to rediscover those intuitions that Marx had had before the Manifesto of 1848 and to begin a cultural revolution of the Marxist type by exploiting thoroughly all the forms of dialectic. To give concrete effect to the previous reflections, a meeting was organized at the end of 1922 on Lenin's initiative at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. It clarified the concept of cultural revolution and the basis of its organization.
"It was perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself," writes Ralph de Toledano.[9] Participants in the meeting were Karl Radek, Lenin's representative; Felix Dzherzhinsky,[10] to ensure that whatever strategy emerged would be integrated into the Soviet worldwide network of murder and subversion; Willi Munzenberg; and Georg Lukacs.
Let us consider the two most influential members at this meeting: Willi Munzenberg and Georg Lukacs. Willi Munzenberg played an important role in the creation of the Comintern.[11] He was a German Communist leader in the inter-war period who brought a sense of organization to the proposed cultural revolution. He was later murdered on the orders of Stalin.[12] Georg Lukacs (1885-1971) was of a Jєωιѕн family from Hungary. He was the People's Commissar for Culture and Education in Bela Kun's Communist government in Hungary. As a good Marxist theoretician he developed the subject "Revolution and Eros," in other words, to use sex instinct as an instrument of destruction. In the cultural revolution project, his role was decisive. He brought his ideas to it and it benefited from his knowledge of the cultural field and his relations with German-speaking artists and intellectuals.
The Power of a Small Number
Munzenberg and Lukacs both knew that societies and civilizations are not propelled by mass movements. The Bolshevik Revolution had not been brought about by mass demonstrations, but by the disintegration of Czarism, the corruption of the ruling class, and by the erosion of that class's faith in itself and its will to hold to power. Lenin's theoretical journal, Iskra, which was instrumental in bringing down the imperial regime, had a circulation of 3,000–and all of them intellectuals.[13]
The success of a strategy which would bring about that disintegration, corruption, and erosion in the West, the cultural revolution could alone produce the pre-emptive conditions for a Communist revolution. The obstacle was Western civilization itself and the culture it engendered.
Western civilization was made up of many mansions–the morality that derives from religion, the family, respect for the past as a guide to the future, the restraint of man's baser instincts, and a social and political organization which guaranteed freedom without inviting license. And of these obstacles, the two greatest were an immanent God and the family. This was the message of the Marx of 1843, before he launched into pseudo-scientific economic history. His call then was for the ruthless criticism of everything existing, but particularly religion, science, and the family. Then, with Western man "liberated" of his humanity and rooting in the mud, the new, politically correct society would arise. [14]
How would it be brought about? The first key idea was to act upon the intellectuals:
We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat. [15]
The second key idea was to exploit Freud's ideas in a Marxist way:
The start of conceptual debasement of man's sɛҳuąƖ instincts had been begun by Sigmund Freud....Sex, the most explosive aspect of the human psyche, was to be unleashed. An amalgam of neo-Freudianism and neo-Marxism were to destroy the fragile defenses of Western civilization's immune system.[16]
The Frankfurt School's German Phase (1923-32)
To incarnate this worldview, an Institute for Marxism was founded at Frankfurt in 1923. It quickly took a more neutral label: "The Institute for Social Research."[17] Frankfurt was not chosen accidentally. Since the Middle Ages, Frankfurt has been one of the most important centers of influence in Germany. Frankfurt was the city of origin of several financial dynasties. In the 18th century, Frankfurt was the center of the Bavarian Illuminati, of that High Masonry which played a key role in the preparation of the French Revolution. It was near Frankfurt where, in 1781, a Masonic assembly decided upon the death of Louis XVI and the King of Sweden. In the 20th century:
Frankfurt was the German city that had the highest percentage of Jews in the population of any German town; the Jєωιѕн community residing there was the best known and, after Berlin, the second largest Jєωιѕн community....It was a city in which the number of middle-class sympathizers with socialism and communism was unusually high.[18]
It is therefore logical that it was at Frankfurt that the research institute for the study of the planning stage of cultural revolution–the Institute for Social Research, and which after 1960 was to be called the Frankfurt School–should be set up.
The Institute for Social Research
From 1923-30, the Institute was directed by Carl Grünberg, known and respected in academic circles, of Austrian origin and Marxist convictions. From 1930-58, it was directed by Max Horkheimer, a doctor of philosophy and of Marxist orientation. After having supplied the Institute with a good number of its basic ideas, it was said of Georg Lukacs, who left it afterwards, "Whatever the disagreements that separated them in subsequent years–and they were serious–the Institute and Lukacs spoke to similar questions from within a common tradition."[19]
The other important personalities at the Institute were: Erich Fromm (1900-80); Theodor Adorno (1903-69), author of the book The Authoritarian Personality, which we will address below; Karl Korsch (1886-1961); Wilhem Reich (1897-1957); Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970); Walter Benjamin (1892-1940); and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), who was accepted as a member of the Institute in 1932. It is important to note that Herbert Marcuse's arrival strengthened the group of those within the Institute who had adopted "a dialectical rather than a mechanical understanding of Marxism."[20] This means that the Marxists of the Institute held ideas more akin to Trotsky (revolution spread throughout like a virus) rather than of Stalin's monolithism.
The Frankfurt School in the U.S.
When in 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, the Institute closed its doors in Frankfurt and re-organized itself in the United States. What follows is a description by Jeffrey Steinberg in his (as yet unpublished) study Draft Report on Manchurian Children[21] on the installation of the Institute in the United States and its fields of activity in the years 1932-50.
By the early 1930s, the Frankfurt School[22] abandoned pre-Hitler Germany, where they had already played a mighty role in the cultural decadence that fostered the nαzιs, and, after a brief sojourn in Switzerland, settled in the U.S. Courtesy of Columbia and Princeton Universities, the London School of Economics, the British Fabian Society, education subversive John Dewey, the Rockefeller family foundations, and others, leading figures in the Frankfurt School were given privileged positions in the elite American universities. Columbia University became the official "American home" of the Frankfurt School.
At Princeton University, Frankfurt School member Paul Lazarsfeld headed the Radio Research Project, an early social engineering and social profiling effort, bankrolled by the Rockefeller foundations and the U.S. Army. Frankfurt School leader Theodor Adorno became the head of the music studies unit under Lazarsfeld, where he wrote, in the 1930s and 1940s, about the prospects of unleashing atonal and other forms of popular music as a weapon to destroy society. In his seminal work, The Theory of Modern Music, Adorno advocated the use of such degenerate forms of music to promote mental illness–including necrophilia–on a mass scale. He wrote elsewhere that the United States could be brought to its knees via the use of radio and television, to promote a culture of pessimism, despair, and self-hatred.
In the early 1940s, the American Jєωιѕн Committee hired Horkheimer and Adorno, along with a majority of the Frankfurt School refugees, to direct a decade-long Studies in Prejudice, which produced five major works. The most famous of the Studies, The Authoritarian Personality,[23] trashed American postwar morality, arguing that, because the vast majority of Americans still believed in the virtues of God, nation, and family, America was ripe for a fascist authoritarian takeover. For the Frankfurt School social revolutionaries, any belief in a transcendent God was fascist. It was from this struggle against "prejudices" that "political correctness," which triumphs today, was born.
Some leading Frankfurt School personalities, including Adorno and Max Horkheimer, had, by the late 1930s, migrated to Hollywood, where they joined the ranks of Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Igor Stravinsky, and Alexander Korda, in pioneering the use of the new emerging "mass culture industry" as a vehicle for mass cultural subversion and the furtherance of their "Cultural Pessimism" project. Not coincidentally, Korda was a graduate of the Ministry of Culture and Education of the Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, where he served directly under the Frankfurt School's founder and top Comintern spy, Georg Lukacs. Englishmen Huxley and Isherwood were veterans of British Fabian psychological warfare projects.[24]
Simple-minded anti-Communists, oblivious of the Frankfurt School's Comintern agenda of "culture war" spent so much time looking for subliminal revolutionary messages in the Hollywood cinemas that they failed to take note of the fact that the movie industry was increasingly turning out trash films that glorified sex, murder, and drug abuse. Had they studied the twisted writings of Horkheimer and Adorno, or their Hollywood fellow travelers Huxley and Isherwood, they would have realized, long ago, that the name of the game was psycho-cultural subversion.
As early as the 1950's, Adorno was writing, in various "critical theory" journals, that once the majority of Americans had been trapped into spending their leisure time in front of the television set or the movie theater screen, the process of destroying "bourgeois capitalist society" would be completed. Aldous Huxley described this process of brainwashing, enhanced by psychedelic drug use, as a "kind of cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ without tears," and as the "final revolution."
At the same time that Hollywood was being invaded by Frankfurt School members and fellow travelers, the American educational system, from kindergarten to postgraduate, was also being assailed by the same apparatus. The authors of this report provided an in-depth account of how the Frankfurt School, in league with John Dewey and his cohorts at the National Educational Association, and Kurt Lewin's National Training Labs, have subverted the American educational system (see The Crisis in American Education, 1995, by Jeffrey Steinberg and Paul Goldstein). The fact is, by the end of World War II, the transformation of our public schools from educational institutions dedicated to preparing young people to function as citizens of a democratic republic into experimental laboratories testing murderous theories of mass mind control and Marxist-Freudian social revolution was well underway. The University of Chicago, a hotbed of Frankfurt School and Deweyite subversion, contributed one of the seminal studies on how to transform American education, edited by Prof. Benjamin Bloom, called Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Several years later, Lord Bertrand Russell wrote in The Future of Science, "I think the subject that will be of the most importance politically is mass psychology....The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten....It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies of policemen."[25]
Let us clearly understand what Jeffrey Steinberg is saying in the preceding text. It is not a question of attributing the totality of the subversion in the domains of music, film, television, and school to the Frankfurt School; it is a question simply of showing that, in these various domains, the Frankfurt School had explained in advance what must be done and then piloted it.
In 1950, three of the main members of the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock, left the U.S. to resettle in Frankfurt and to set up a new "Institute for Social Research." The Institute pursued its activities until Theodor Adorno's death in 1969. A part of the team, which included Herbert Marcuse, remained in the U.S.
The principal work of the Frankfurt School was therefore spread over a period of 46 years–from 1923-69. By 1969, the movement was well established and younger men would take charge.
Key Ideas of the Cultural Revolution
In the previous sections, we outlined the general concept of cultural revolution as it was conceived by the Frankfurt School. What follows is a more systematic explanation drawn from the works of Herbert Marcuse. Why Herbert Marcuse? Because he has clearly explained the main ideas conceived and put into practice by him and his colleagues at the Frankfurt School. Marcuse had this to say about the concept of cultural revolution:
One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old fashioned...what we must understand is a type of diffused and dispersed disintegration of the system.[26]
Regarding the process of cultural revolution, especially the fact that it is "quiet," he writes that the cultural subversion will be wide-spread not through terrorist processes but slowly, subtly, peacefully. Hence the idea of a cultural revolution which would be a "quiet revolution."[27]
If classic class struggle is abandoned because the working class is no longer revolutionary, this will be to the benefit of a new revolutionary sensibility. The revolt will have to be developed in two new areas, those being non-material needs (of self-determination, human relations) and the physiological dimensions of existence (race, sex, etc.). In conformity with this new revolutionary sensibility, the ideas of Freud will be exploited from a Marxist rather than a bourgeois perspective. This system is called "Cultural Marxism," the ideological part of which is known under the name of "Critical Theory." Let us recall that the book already cited, The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno (1950) can be considered a sort of manifesto of "Critical Theory."
We wish to emphasize this point, which constitutes one of the main basic ideas of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse summarized Freud's theory as follows:
a) The essence of being is "eros," the search for pleasure, that is, "pansɛҳuąƖism";
b) The individual has to accept the cultural control of his instinctive needs, otherwise there is no possibility of civilized society;
c) From this arises the conflict between the principle of pleasure (free satisfaction of instinctive needs) and the principle of reality (where needs are controlled).
The Marxist is interested in conflict, in the dialectic, and all that can incite these. His idea of civilization is different from that of Freud. In the Freudian scheme of things summarized above, he will accept a) but not b). Freudian ideas will be used as a dialectical element to destroy existing civilization and serve to support "a civilization developing from libidinous relations and supported by them." PansɛҳuąƖism must be thus developed methodically with all its destructive effects.
Freud systematized pansɛҳuąƖism, but the origin of it goes back to the Cabala[28] and heathen religions. It is a rather complex theory, the main elements of which can be can be summarized this way: According to the Cabala, God can be considered in Himself or in His manifestations. In Himself God is an indefinite being, vaguely called En Sof (who has no limits) or Ayin (non-being). In His manifestations, God shows himself by "emanations" by which he perfects himself, whence comes the idea of an evolutionary God, and that of pantheism (the notion of creation being replaced by that of emanation). These emanations number ten and are called Sefiroth. Three of them are male, and three others are female. The Sefiroth Victory (male) and Sefiroth Glory (female) are concentrated in the Sefirah Foundation,[29] the symbol of which is the organ of generation. One understands, in these conditions, that the sɛҳuąƖ principle, presented as an integral part of the divinity, has a tendency to permeate everything. Because it is rooted in the Cabala, the pansɛҳuąƖism of the Frankfurt School and of the cultural revolution to which it contributed so powerfully has therefore a religious connotation. [See Angelus Press English Edition of SiSiNoNo, The Angelus, May 2006, No.69–Ed.]
Exploiting the Male-Female Dialectic
"PansɛҳuąƖism"–in other words, the unleashing of the base passions of man–constitutes the first exploitation of the difference between the sexes. Another aspect of the differences between the sexes will be systematically exploited to bring about the overthrow of the traditional relationship between men and women. This is to be accomplished by attacking the authority of the father, by denying the specific roles of the father and mother, by suppressing differences in the education of boys and girls, by abolishing forms of male superiority (hence the presence of the women in the armed forces), and by considering women and children as an oppressed class and men as the oppressors. In support of this overthrow, there exists an ideology–radical feminism.
Using pansɛҳuąƖism and the overthrow of the relationship between men and women, the founders of the cultural revolution have two powerful means by which to destroy the family. The Frankfurt School knew how to draw in a remarkable way on the scientific progress of its day–progress in the means of communication (its action in regard to music and films), and progress in the psychological sciences. In the field of psychology, Abraham Maslow, a protégé of the cultural revolution, played an important role in perfecting methods of psychological conditioning known as "group dynamics" and "sensitivity training."[30]
Results in the West
The principles of the Frankfurt School were embodied in what came to be called "counterculture," the "cultural movement" that especially dominated the highly influential American left until the late 1960s, and which has been described as follows:
Counterculture is the cultural basis of the new left. It includes the effort to discover new types of communities, new models of family, new sɛҳuąƖ customs, new styles of life, new aesthetic forms, new personal identities opposed to power politics, the bourgeois lifestyle, and the Protestant work ethic.[31]
This description dates from 1968. But today, the counterculture characterized by pansɛҳuąƖism, the destruction of paternal authority, and radical feminism is not only the cultural basis of the American left but of almost the whole of society throughout the entire West.
Let us return to pansɛҳuąƖism. Given its religious origin, it is undoubtedly the most dangerous element. It has invaded society at large, accounting for indecent fashions, for titillating posters and advertisements, magazines, films, TV and radio broadcasts, for the degraded behavior of young and old, for sex education; pansɛҳuąƖism is supported by the State, and has its effect even in traditional Catholic circles. To give an example, here is the recent testimony of a priest exercising his ministry in the Lebanon:
It is important to look at the evidence: whether they are Catholic, Orthodox or Moslem, one does not have the impression that the religious authorities of this country (Lebanon) realize the galloping degradation of morals that has taken place, particularly through the means of language and American and Anglo-Saxon models.
At the very least, ecclesiastical authorities should react. But how does one publicly seek the censorship of squalid publications (for the greater part in English) or of disgusting television programs, when the pastors have the custom of remaining silent in their own churches when faced with the glistening of bare flesh offered to their blasé parishioners, who are not averse to taking in what is on display?
But what is striking in the Near East, is that this tide of pornography, these dubious deviances and this display of vice appear only in "Christian" regions. It is not in the neighboring countries, with a Moslem majority, that one would find visa and residence permits granted to the 7,000 prostitutes who come from Eastern Europe and whose blond hair may lead astray some young (and not so young) Lebanese.
It is alarming all the same to be told in Damascus by a very holy monk: "Here, Islam protects Christianity because it does not allow the importation of moral corruption." It would do good to read once more, in Apocalypse, what Our Lord said to the angel of the Church of Laodicea (Apoc. 3:14-22), and to concur.[32]
Cybernetics
What is "cybernetics"? It is defined as "the study of communication and control processes in biological, mechanical, and electronic systems." This "science," developed in the United States, rests on the false hypothesis of the essential similarity of communication and control (understood in the sense of command) in machines and human beings.[33] It is presented as a mixture of well-founded scientific theories (mainly the theory of information) and of materialist ideology (man is only a sophisticated machine, and machines will allow us to reproduce the functioning of the human brain and even to surpass it).
It was in New York (1942), at a conference organized by the Josiah Macy Foundation, where the cybernetics brain-trust group was launched. It would be known later as the Cybernetics Group. The initial activity, called the "Man-Machine Project," had as its object
to draw together a group of electrical engineers, biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists to devise experiments in social control, based on the belief that the human brain was nothing more than a complex input-output machine, and that human behavior could, in effect, be programmed, on both an individual and societal scale.[34]
The group's works took shape after the Second World War with the support of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[35] Ten conferences organized by the Macy Foundation were held between 1953 and 1964 and marked its stages.
It is here that one sees the appearance of members of the Frankfurt School, who had, from the beginning, grasped the importance of the cybernetics project for their more general enterprise of cultural revolution. While directing the groups of studies on prejudices, Max Horkheimer, director of the Frankfurt School, collaborated with the Cybernetics Group. In 1948, he participated at Paris at the foundation of the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH), one of the more harmful projects stemming from the Cybernetics Group. Kurt Lewin, a fellow traveler of the Frankfurt School, played an important role within this same group. He had founded at MIT the Research Center for Group Dynamics, then created the National Training Laboratories, active in the same domain. With Karl Korsch, another member of the Frankfurt School, he had set up a foundation to develop artificial intelligence. Here is how Jeffrey Steinberg presents the role of the Frankfurt School and the associated group, the Tavistock Institute,[36] in the cybernetics project:
What Lukacs and his Frankfurt School protégés despised about Western Christianity was its belief in the sanctity of the individual soul, the idea that every individual human being was created by God in his living image, and that every individual had a divine spark of creativity that could serve the betterment of all mankind. Lukacs and company understood, all too well, that no revolution could succeed in the West for very long until the principle of "imago viva Dei" (man in the living image of God) had been destroyed and replaced by a far more bestialized and pessimistic notion of mankind.
It is here where the "Kulturkampf" of Lukacs, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse directly impacted upon the postwar technological revolution in mass communications. The convergence point was a little-known project, launched in the early 1940's, by a virtually unknown tax-exempt foundation, the Josiah P. Macy Foundation. Macy bankrolled a decade-long "Man-Machine Project," which came to be known among its initiates as the Cybernetics Group.
Although the two most famous individuals associated with the invention of the term "cybernetics" were John Von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, several other individuals were in reality the dominant figures within the group. The real "pioneers" of the so-called "information revolution" were Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, Kurt Lewin, Max Horkheimer, and Dr. John Rawlings Rees–all pivotal figures in the Frankfurt School, Tavistock, or both.
The Cybernetics Group borrowed a page from Georg Lukacs's game plan for social revolution. They argued that there was nothing divine about man. Indeed, man-made machines would soon be superior "thinking machines" to the human mind.[37]
Cultural Revolution Today
Since this article was first published five years ago, it is necessary to provide an update of the current global video-game market. (The author refers to the phenomenon on page 30.) In 2005, the sales of worldwide video-game software and hardware brought in $27 billion shared between the big three home-entertainment-console producers: Microsoft's Xbox versions, Sony's PlayStation2, and Nintendo's GameCube. However, while the market has a large and dedicated following, it has been unable to entice new players, especially girls and the elderly. The result is a video game market which has actually become stagnant with the U.S. itself stuck at around $12 billion annually, virtually unchanged in the last five years. All three manufacturers will be releasing new versions of their gaming hardware in the next year with an eye to hyping bigger sales and attracting non-gamers.
The standard video-game controller/joystick is simply too hard to learn or makes one look too weird when playing, and this keeps people away. With its GameCube in last place among the Big Three, Nintendo is promising to change gaming by making it easier. Replacing the current controller will be something approximating a TV remote control, part laser pointer and part motion sensor. It will know what you're aiming at, how fast you move, and how far it is from the TV screen. Swing the controller to "...swing a sword,...swat a fly, do squat-thrusts like a weight lifter, turn a key in the lock, catch a fish, saute vegetables, balance a broom on [your] outstretched hand, color in a circle, and fence with a foil...even dance the hula....nstead of passively playing the games, with the new controller you physically perform them. You act them out. It's almost like theater: the fourth wall between game and player dissolves. The scene of immersion–the illusion that you, personally, are projected into the game world–is powerful."
The sensors are so sensitive that in playing video-tennis, you can scoop under the ball to lob it or slice it for spin. No buttons to press for video-football.
Gesture a hiking motion, and the ball's in the quarterback's hands. To pass the ball, gesture a throwing motion: hard and fast for bullet passes; slower, less forcefully to lob it. Sword fight; aim a bow and shoot an arrow; reel in a feisty virtual fish.
Cutting-edge design has become more important than cutting-edge technology, that is, what's important to gamers is not more power and more features, but how easy it is to play and how "cool"
you look doing so.–compiled by the Editor
from Time magazine (5/05/2006, pp.36-39).
Almost 40 years after the death of Adorno in 1969, almost 30 years after that of Marcuse in 1979, the cultural revolution continues by remaining impregnated with the ideas of the Frankfurt School, whose key idea was expressed thus by Willi Munzenberg, "We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks."[38]
We have already addressed at length the subject of pansɛҳuąƖism, more popular today than ever. We shall confine ourselves to the cybernetic project and video games as another element of the current situation where the legacy from the Frankfurt School is demonstrated. As indicated above, the Frankfurt School had greatly inspired the Cybernetics Group during the 1940s and 1950s. In bodies stemming from this group, one finds the same inspiration. Here is the example of the Media Lab:
By the 1980s, MIT had spawned the Media Lab, another direct outgrowth of the Cybernetics Group of the 1940s and 1950s. Here social engineers worked hand in glove with the engineers and machine designers who were developing high-speed computers, computer graphics, holographics, and the first generation of computer simulators....According to the initial proposal the laboratory was to provide for the "intellectual mix of two rapidly evolving and very different fields: information technologies and the human sciences" (Steve Joshua Heims, The Cybernetics Group).[39]
What was the state of mind of these researchers? In his book The Cybernetics Group, Steve Joshua Heims indicates that in the 1980s, the cybernetics milieu had created its own religion, a pagan system in full agreement with what Timothy Leary called "scientific paganism." The scientific paganism of the researchers was one thing, but more serious was that the results obtained by these researchers allowed them to develop scientific paganism on a grand scale and, more generally, the cultural revolution of which scientific paganism is an element.
The Media Lab of MIT and the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab were two of the magnets for this money and the research work which fueled both the Pentagon training-simulation programs and the evolving video-game industry.[40]
The Frankfurt School, the Cybernetics Group, Media Lab and other bodies, the video-game industry: here is one of the relationships that enabled the technical perfection of one of the most effective instruments of the cultural revolution today–the video game. This is not to say, however, that Media Lab is responsible for the fundamentally immoral orientation of the greater number of video games.
The second generation video-game market in the United States is expanding rapidly. According to Jeffrey Steinberg ("Draft Report," p. 93), "point-and-shoot" video games bring in nine to eleven billion dollars annually. These games represent the perfecting of role-playing games which have been developed since the late 1970s. They allow one to while away hour after hour in a virtual world where one can be anybody one wants to be and can act without having to suffer the consequences of one's actions. Any person–young or not-so-young–can be habitually divorced from reality and easily manipulated in the direction suggested by the game. Even if the orientation of the game is good, it can still have an ill effect resulting from the time, often very long, spent in a virtual world.
But very frequently the orientation of the game is bad. There is in them violence of various sorts. There are very realistic shooting simulations (useful for training soldiers, perhaps, but evidently dangerous for young people left to themselves), pornographic aspects (pansɛҳuąƖism is everywhere), incitement to indulge in magic (the spectator-actor casts spells which, on the screen, are effective), Satanism, and in a general way, the excitement of the lust for power linked to a materialist conception of life.
Here is an example of how a production company presents the video game "Gangsters" (which, according to some, seems harmless):
This gives you the opportunity to be a gangster in a Chicago-style city of the 1920s, controlling an underground organization dealing in extortion, illegal liquor, prostitution, violence, intimidation, blackmail, gambling, gang warfare, bribery of officials, permanent elimination of individuals and a host of money-making activities.[41]
This gives a general outline of the game, but here is what the player must do:
The aim of the game is to build your gang and business empire to rule the city. To do this you will have to beat three other gangs operating in the city, and avoid arrest by the authorities.[42]
A young person who actively plays in such a scenario for hours on end will be tempted to transpose some of his virtual experience into the real world.[43] This is what has happened in the United States recently with the brutal murders of young people by some of their high school classmates. Inquiries have shown that the young murderers fired like professional marksmen and that they had acquired their mastery in shooting and the desire to put it into practice through the use of video games containing that type of simulation.[44] We must recognize that a great number of video games correspond well to the objectives of the Frankfurt School to spread a "culture" based on pessimism, depravity, sɛҳuąƖ license, violence, and drugs.
Conclusion
It was in 1923 that the Frankfurt School began its work. Though it was not exclusively responsible, the cultural revolution which it inspired starting in the 1950s developed in the US and then Europe. About 20 years later, the cultural revolutions of 1968, under the influence of Marcuse, mark an important stage. About another 30 years after 1968 would be needed to see the triumph of the counterculture which began 80 years earlier.
We are dealing with a long-term, brilliantly conceived operation. The men of thought and action who devised it had the foresight to understand what had to be done and to carry it out consistently by selecting priority sectors–universities, music, media broadcasting, psychological and educational action–to put at their service the networks which were offered to them. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
How can we explain the fact that this plan met with the same success in Catholic countries as it did in Protestant countries? Without doubt this was because Catholics had another cultural revolution to face as well as that inspired by the Frankfurt School: the one which since the 1960s has raged inside the Church. It was a general disturbance: a new revolutionary Mass, a new calendar, the abandonment of Latin and the religious habit, the organ and traditional songs replaced by profane music, transformation of religious art,[45] churches becoming conference rooms rather than temples of the Lord, and inconsistent catechesis proposing a formless and undemanding religion. The Catholic environment dissolved at the very moment when the faithful needed it most, hence the uprooting of Catholics from their culture, their abandonment of religious practice en masse and thus becoming all the more vulnerable to the cultural revolution which came from Frankfurt via the United States. The parallel between the two cultural revolutions is remarkable. They occurred barely within ten years of each other. Political leaders favored the first whereas religious leaders supported the second or allowed it to happen. This begs the question as to whether there are not a number of connections between them.
What do we do if the mystery of iniquity is so very powerfully installed? It is necessary, obviously, to protect in our fields of action our Catholic culture, to keep alive the rest of Christendom which remains among us, and not follow the general train of things under the excuse that it is just the way things are. All this supposes a certain asceticism. It consists in suppressing what ought to be suppressed in order to avoid being contaminated by the counterculture, just as the Christians of the first centuries refrained from going to baths and the circus to escape the corruption of their time.
In conclusion, let us emphasize the usefulness of knowing–all the better to fight it–the process of destruction so intelligently implemented by the Frankfurt School and its followers. We must not neglect such facts, because, as Abbot Joseph Lemann remarked:
In history, he who does not take account, not only of Providence, but also of Hell, will only ever have an inaccurate view and will only provide incomplete explanations. God and Satan fight for the heart of man: each of us knows that, but they also battle for the direction of society, its developments and its stages. The first page of the Bible reveals it; Christ reminded us regarding the Church that the gates of Hell will not prevail; and since then, the history of these eighteen centuries lets us clearly see, over and above our quarrels over cities, countries, nations, and races, the spectacle of these two immense forces in combat: Infernal malice devastating society, and divine grace repairing, supporting, and always advancing it.[46]
This study first appeared in July 2001, published by Action Familiale et Scolaire, 31 rue Rennequin, 75017–Paris, France; the English version was originally published in Apropos, No. 21, March 2003. Permission to publish it in The Angelus was granted by the author, Arnaud de Lassus, and the translator, Mr. Anthony Fraser, Editor of Apropros. The photograph on pp. 14-15 shows the Frankfurt riverfront (the Main River), 2003.
1 A socialist formula from 1968. See further details of this subject, in Pascal Bernardin's L'Empire Écologique, Chapter V, "Techniques of Non-aversive Control," and the commentary on same in "Ecology and Globalism" in the March 2003 issue of Apropos.
2 See Maciej Giertych's article "The Political and Economic Situation in Poland."
3 Quoted by Philippe Ploncard d'Assac in Le nationalisme français, p.26.
4 The Alta Vendita was a high-level Masonry which, during the first half of the 19th century, dominated European Masonry.
5 The pseudonym of an Alta Vendita agent.
6 Letter of January 18, 1822; quoted by Cretineau-Joly, L'eglise romaine en face de la Revolution, XI, 104.
7 The pseudonym of an Alta Vendita agent.
8 Letter of August 9, 1838; quoted by Cretineau-Joly, op.cit., XI, 128. Cf. the AFS brochure, Connaissance Élémentaire de la franc-maçonnerie, p.110.
9 Ralph de Toledano, The Frankfurt School, (manuscript, 2000), p.11. This study shows how the idea of cultural revolution was born and piloted by the Frankfurt School.
10 The creator of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka.
11 Third Communist International, founded in 1919 by Lenin and dissolved by Stalin in 1943. It was reconstituted at Sofia in 1995.
12 The Marxist Encyclopedia states that he was murdered in 1944.–Ed., Apropos.
13 De Toledano, The Frankfurt School, p. 23.
14 Ibid., pp. 4-15.
15 Willi Munzenberg, quoted by Ralph de Toledano, ibid., p. 5.
16 Ibid., p. 24. This point will be developed below.
17 Official date of its creation in February 3, 1923, by a decree of the Ministry of Education (cf. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, [University of California Press, 1996], p. 10).
18 Ralf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), p.17 (Wiggerhaus cites this among the reasons for the extremely favorable circuмstances at the outset of the Institute for Social Research).
19 Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, p. 175.
20 Ibid., p. 29.
21 A study on video games and their destructive effect.
22 Called in future the Frankfurt School Institute for Social Research.
23 Published in 1950 by Harper & Brothers, New York. It was written by Adorno, along with Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford, in collaboration with Betty Aron, Maria Hertz Levinson, and William Morrow.
24 The Fabian Society: an English, Socialist movement founded in 1883. It was the origin of the Labor Party.
25 Jeffrey Steinberg, Michael Steinberg, and Anton Chaitkin, "Draft Report on Manchurian Children," (unpublished study, 2001), pp. 5-8.
26 Text of H. Marcuse, quoted in The Resister, Summer-Autumn, 1998.
27 At the same time as the work was being carried out by the Frankfurt School, these ideas were being developed in parallel by the Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who remained in prison from 1926 until his death.
28 In Jєωιѕн thought, one generally associates esoteric and mystical education with the Cabala. In the widest meaning of a word, this describes the successive esoteric currents which developed from the end of the period of the Second Temple and which became the dynamic elements in the history of Judaism (Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Judaism, s.v. "The Mystical Jew").
29 The sefiroth Victory, Glory, and Foundation are in Hebrew called Netzach, Hod, and Yesod respectively.–Ed., Apropos.
30 Cf. The Resister, Summer–Autumn, 1998, p. 54. On group dynamics, see the Apropos pamphlet "Elementary Knowledge of the New Age," pp. 33-37. See also the book by Ed. Dieckermann, Jr., Sensitivity Training and the Cult of Mind Control.
31 Theodore Roszah, "Youth and the Great refusal," The Nation, on 1968. Quote by News Weekly, February 10, 2000.
32 "Repens-toi, Laodicée," Bulletin de l'Association de St Pierre d'Antioche et de tout l' Orient (Les Sablons, 61560 Bazoches-sur-Hoeur), No. 23, March, 2001. See the article having the same title in Action Familiale et Scolaire, No. 155 (June, 2001).
33 P. de Latil., La pensée artificielle, quoted by Le Robert.
34 J. Steinberg, Draft Report on Manchurian Children, p. 86.
35 Usually indicated by the abbreviation MIT (Massachussetts Institute of Technology).
36 British Center of the Psychological Group, of which John Rawling-Rees was Director.
37 J. Steinberg, Draft Report, pp.12-13. This author is not a Catholic. The above phrase, "Every individual possesses a divine spark of creativity" is a little ambiguous and should be understood as meaning, "Every individual can possess divine grace."
38 Quote by Ralph de Toledano, The Frankfurt School, p. 26.
39 J. Steinberg, Draft Report, pp. 90-91.
40 Ibid., p. 93.
41 Quote by J. Steinberg, ibid., p.55.
42 Ibid.
43 One will find in the oft-quoted study of J. Steinberg other examples of scenarios of video games.
44 See the study by J. Steinberg, second part "The Killer Children: A Chronology," which analyzes ten cases of child murderers of children, including that at Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado (April 20, 1999).
45 Cf. the A.F.S. brochure A Sign of the Times: Evry Cathedral.
46 L'Entrée des Israélites dans la société française (The Entrance of the Israelites into French Society) (p. 205). Abbot Joseph Lemann (1836-1915), a Jew who was converted at the same time as his brother Augustine. He is the author of remarkable works on the French Revolution.
SOURCES
The first two books are written by authors sympathetic to the Frankfurt School. The remaining authors, other than Marcuse, have a critical view of cultural revolution.
Jay, Martin. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950. University of California Press, 1996.
Wiggershaus, Rolf. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998.
De Toledano, Ralph. The Frankfurt School (Unpublished study, 2000).
Steinberg, Jeffrey. Draft Report on Manchurian Children (Unpublished study, 2001).
Atkinson, Gerard L. "Who Placed American Men in a Psychic Iron Cage?"; Part II "The Thread of Cultural Marxism," The Resister, Summer–Autumn, 1998.
Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilisation. 1955; French edition: Les Editions de Minuit, 1997.
Current Issue
Recent Issues
August 2012
June 2012
March 2012
January 2012
October 2011
September 2011
Our Bookstore
Home
Subscribe
The Angelus
The Si si No no
Feedback
News
About Us
Bookstore
-
We should go back to the dichotomy of separate schools for the sexes. It has been a surprise to me that St. Marys College is co-ed.
These days, women do need to be educated so as to be able to homeschool their children and/or help run a small school cooperative, as well as to help set up and run family businesses, not to mention support themselves should they wind up as a widow with children or not called to be married. We need to find a way to extend the type of education the Dominican sisters give at Post Falls and Messena to the next level.
Most women and most men do not need a university education. We need to go back to the system whereby a high school diploma really means something and allows a person to function at a very competent level in most areas of endeavor.
The main reason modern society has pushed the "college for everyone" agenda is so that the ones in charge have that many more years to indoctrinate everyone, especially once the student is removed from the parental home. College life, especially dorm life, is depraved and demonic. The only way to avoid the corruption and attend for the educational benefits is to live at home and attend as a day student. That way one can counteract the propaganda with Catholic home life and Mass and the sacraments.
Would that real Catholic colleges still existed!
-
These days, women do need to be educated so as to be able to homeschool their children and/or help run a small school cooperative, as well as to help set up and run family businesses, not to mention support themselves should they wind up as a widow with children or not called to be married.
Running a business is not the mother's duty, it's the man's job to bring home the finances.
-
This is one of those threads where I'm scratching my head as to who and why is down thumbing?
Please share your thoughts, dear contrarians. Truly, I'd like to hear your refutations.
-
This is one of those threads where I'm scratching my head as to who and why is down thumbing?
Please share your thoughts, dear contrarians. Truly, I'd like to hear your refutations.
I think the post is OK, I didn't thumb it down.
There's nothing wrong with education per se, or even learning marketable skills, so long as it is not set up to be a higher priority than motherhood.
Today, the reality is that nearly all middle class parents consider a career for their daughter to be a higher priority than marriage and motherhood.
Including a clear majority of trads - who will not hesitate to send their daughters to institutions inimical to the values they supposedly hold, out of a belief that it is a necessity.
-
These days, women do need to be educated so as to be able to homeschool their children and/or help run a small school cooperative, as well as to help set up and run family businesses, not to mention support themselves should they wind up as a widow with children or not called to be married.
Running a business is not the mother's duty, it's the man's job to bring home the finances.
The emphasis is on "help." Throughout history, there have been family businesses in which all members (including the wife) of the family helped out.
Also, while it is normal for the man to attend to finances, it is not always the case. If you will study history, you will find that quite often fathers die before the children are grown. In times past, without some sort of training and/or education the widow and children would be left destitute. We must face the present reality that extended families are almost non-existent now. If a widow and children are not to be forced to go onto government assistance (welfare), the mother needs to know something about supporting her family. A truly family business would not only provide for support for the entire family in case of the father's early death, but it would also provide for the next generation.
-
Most young men can get life insurance and disability insurance in case of their death or disability to provide for their families.
I disagree that women need to be educated beyond 8th grade to successfully homeschool.
-
Most young men can get life insurance and disability insurance in case of their death or disability to provide for their families.
This is true, but will they? do they? can they really afford it? I have seen too many cases where the money was not there when the father died.
I disagree that women need to be educated beyond 8th grade to successfully homeschool.
How, pray tell, can one teach high school subjects with only an eighth grade education?
We need a large dose of reality here. Unless every father wants to come home after a hard day's work and teach all his many children (we are talking Catholics here) all high school subjects, it behooves every traditional Catholic girl to get at least an excellent high school education and some college (e.g. two years at St. Marys).
It is a long a venerable tradition in Catholicism to educate women so they can teach the faith and other subjects, when necessary, to their children. Education in itself does not mean teaching women to take over the jobs of men. Back when we were awash in teaching sisters and good Catholic schools, it was not important for mothers to be educated so as to be educators. In case you have not noticed, those times are gone!
-
it behooves every traditional Catholic girl to get at least an excellent high school education and some college
Sorry, that's nonsense.
Why do they need high school and two years of college to homeschool?
Being knowledgeable enough to homeschool doesn't even require any formal education at all.
It seems clear you accept the social expectations for education that have been set by the broader culture.
And to suggest St. Mary's as the solution. That is a further sign of very confused thinking.
coed college the SSPX way?
No - Catholic motherhood, the traditional way.
-
We should go back to the dichotomy of separate schools for the sexes. It has been a surprise to me that St. Marys College is co-ed.
These days, women do need to be educated so as to be able to homeschool their children and/or help run a small school cooperative, as well as to help set up and run family businesses, not to mention support themselves should they wind up as a widow with children or not called to be married. We need to find a way to extend the type of education the Dominican sisters give at Post Falls and Messena to the next level.
Most women and most men do not need a university education. We need to go back to the system whereby a high school diploma really means something and allows a person to function at a very competent level in most areas of endeavor.
The main reason modern society has pushed the "college for everyone" agenda is so that the ones in charge have that many more years to indoctrinate everyone, especially once the student is removed from the parental home. College life, especially dorm life, is depraved and demonic. The only way to avoid the corruption and attend for the educational benefits is to live at home and attend as a day student. That way one can counteract the propaganda with Catholic home life and Mass and the sacraments.
Would that real Catholic colleges still existed!
Just to throw it in there-the reason that it is not co-ed is because
a) It is very small-less than 100 students.
b) Very few teachers total-less than 10
c) Not enough space-the college building itself is relatively large, but the actual spaced reserved for the college is pretty small. Most of the building is occupied by living quarters, the chapel, a study hall, etc. There are only about 4 classrooms for the actual college students.
All of these factors combined make a co-ed institution impractical. Were the college to expand, the classes would be separated, just like SSPX high schools. I know people who have completed the teaching course there, and they said they were told that co-ed classes should only be used in extenuating circuмstances, and that whenever possible the sexes should be separated in education. The dorms are of course separated. And it is a very good school, despite the small size! That will get me some thumbs down I suppose, but oh well!
As far as women going to college- I think that attending a very Catholic liberal arts school, at least for a couple of years, is not bad, especially if the woman is intellectual and is unsure of what path to choose in life. College for a profession or job is 99% of the time unnecessary and counter-productive, and usually only leads to the promotion of feminism. Of course there are exceptions, but as they say, the exception generally proves the rule.
As an aside-I believe that most of the time a mother with only high-school education is not well-suited to teaching advanced subjects in high school. Personal experience... a trained teacher usually does this stuff a lot better. Of course, I am not suggesting attending a public school. But if a good traditional Catholic school was nearby, I would send my kids (if I were married and had any!) to high school at least.
-
Most young men can get life insurance and disability insurance in case of their death or disability to provide for their families.
I disagree that women need to be educated beyond 8th grade to successfully homeschool.
Such women are unable to teach advanced subjects, including science, geometry, trig, pre-calc, etc.
Personal experience. My mother-a very intelligent woman, with a college degree in Communications and an IQ that measured 136 when she was tested in her teens-was never taught any mathematics. I was awful at math despite my best efforts. I was sent to an SSPX school for high school and was taught math, algebra through calculus by a couple of fantastic teachers. Now I am taking multi-variable Calculus. Had I finished high school being homeschooled, there is NO WAY I would be able to do that. I probably would have been put back into remedial math (this is no reflection on my poor mother. :) I got a perfect score on the reading and writing portion of the SAT, largely I believe because of her. She is a great writer and taught me well).
Trained teachers are extremely important in math and science-especially for boys!
-
Such women are unable to teach advanced subjects, including science, geometry, trig, pre-calc, etc.
I know from personal experience that this is not necessarily true.
-
Such women are unable to teach advanced subjects, including science, geometry, trig, pre-calc, etc.
I know from personal experience that this is not necessarily true.
I am sure that there are exceptions, but again.....exceptions prove the rule.
-
There are such things as tutors, older siblings, etc, that can teach high school mathematics.
Of course, that might require hiring a male tutor who is a bit demanding.
Can't have that!
I'm 100% certain that the reason college is being insisted on here has nothing to with trad women teaching trigonometry to their children.
-
The Saxon series is self teaching and goes all the way to Calculus. Like Tele said there are tutors, siblings, now there are also videos and virtual classrooms.
You also have the public school mentality that children need to be spoon fed to learn. Children can learn a great deal independently too.
-
Most young men can get life insurance and disability insurance in case of their death or disability to provide for their families.
This is true, but will they? do they? can they really afford it? I have seen too many cases where the money was not there when the father died.
I disagree that women need to be educated beyond 8th grade to successfully homeschool.
How, pray tell, can one teach high school subjects with only an eighth grade education?
We need a large dose of reality here. Unless every father wants to come home after a hard day's work and teach all his many children (we are talking Catholics here) all high school subjects, it behooves every traditional Catholic girl to get at least an excellent high school education and some college (e.g. two years at St. Marys).
It is a long a venerable tradition in Catholicism to educate women so they can teach the faith and other subjects, when necessary, to their children. Education in itself does not mean teaching women to take over the jobs of men. Back when we were awash in teaching sisters and good Catholic schools, it was not important for mothers to be educated so as to be educators. In case you have not noticed, those times are gone!
That is sad but there is usually social security and food stamps for some help too. I realize it's not always the case but extended family may be able to help too.
Once children can read they can learn on their own. Mothers can learn with their children too if necessary. My son picks up things much much faster than me. I love learning about saints and Church history in my son's books. It can be fun to learn together.
I organize chess and card games for the boys, I don't play and I have no interest in learning.The mother who runs art class does not teach, but she set up a room, sends out the emails, coordinates the supplies, and found an art teacher that we split the cost for.
-
Yes, children can certainly learn a great deal independently, but for most children that is not the case for advanced subjects.
And please don't get me started on the Saxon series. That series was a product of 60's thinking that children could learn merely by absorption, without learning in an incremental, concrete manner, moving from more basic topics to more complex. I used Saxon up until 11th grade and hated it. Once I got different textbooks my grades shot up. I have talked to numerous other students and every single one of them despised the Saxon math series. Why on earth anyone recommends them is beyond me.
I really don't understand why people are opposed to sending their children to CATHOLIC schools. We aren't talking Novus ordo or public schools for crying out loud! I don't care if you're SSPX or FSSP or sede or whatever, if there is a good traditional Catholic school, why not send your children there?
As far as women going to college, well yes that is bad, save for a few exceptions. I stated that earlier. Why on earth would someone thumb me down for saying that? Some damn feminist? Or someone who thumbs me down regardless of what I say because I'm a "Fellayite"? Get a grip people. We aren't discussing the SSPX situation right now. If someone doesn't like what I said about women not learning a profession, grow a pair and tell me why they should! If someone thinks a person with an 8th grade education can teach calculus and trigonometry, tell me why!
-
There are such things as tutors, older siblings, etc, that can teach high school mathematics.
Of course, that might require hiring a male tutor who is a bit demanding.
Can't have that!
I'm 100% certain that the reason college is being insisted on here has nothing to with trad women teaching trigonometry to their children.
True, but that kind of proves my point. Most women-heck, most men!-without a college degree or training in mathematics is not going to be able to teach high school math, at least not beyond Algebra I.
Certainly college in general is not a good idea for women, but I don't believe that a year or two at a Catholic liberal arts college is necessarily bad. It depends on individual circuмstances.
-
Yes, children can certainly learn a great deal independently, but for most children that is not the case for advanced subjects.
And please don't get me started on the Saxon series. That series was a product of 60's thinking that children could learn merely by absorption, without learning in an incremental, concrete manner, moving from more basic topics to more complex. I used Saxon up until 11th grade and hated it. Once I got different textbooks my grades shot up. I have talked to numerous other students and every single one of them despised the Saxon math series. Why on earth anyone recommends them is beyond me.
I really don't understand why people are opposed to sending their children to CATHOLIC schools. We aren't talking Novus ordo or public schools for crying out loud! I don't care if you're SSPX or FSSP or sede or whatever, if there is a good traditional Catholic school, why not send your children there?
As far as women going to college, well yes that is bad, save for a few exceptions. I stated that earlier. Why on earth would someone thumb me down for saying that? Some damn feminist? Or someone who thumbs me down regardless of what I say because I'm a "Fellayite"? Get a grip people. We aren't discussing the SSPX situation right now. If someone doesn't like what I said about women not learning a profession, grow a pair and tell me why they should! If someone thinks a person with an 8th grade education can teach calculus and trigonometry, tell me why!
Saxon is incremental, and children learning by absorption is not what it's about. He compared to learning math to learning how to drive that children need less theory and more practice . Here is an interview with the author:
edited: link does not work, you have to download the alternate format:
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p655.htm#Message3339
I'm not saying everyone should use Saxon. Many don't like how geometry isn't a separate book. Saxons is sef-teaching and widely available but there are many others. Someone gave me a copy of Teaching Textbooks in Sept. I haven't had time to do more than glance at it but it looks great so far.
My point was there are plenty of alternatives to mothers teaching higher math. Using Saxon is one of them.
-
It has always seemed contradictory for DR Horvat to preach about tradition and be such a blatant feminist herself; the DR in front of her name reveals the truth, whether she admits it or not.
Also, I find it odd that people in traditional circles are so obsessed with their kids getting a college education, as if they have to follow the same track that the worldlings lay out. College will often lead them straight to corporate America, which is a treacherous place to try to earn a living. We traditional Catholics need to pursue alternatives for our children. My husband has a 2 Masters degrees and he wishes that he had spent the years that he spent in college instead perfecting his woodworking skills, or his plumbing skills, or his anything other than sitting on his duff all day with a woman boss telling him what to do, skills!
I remember maybe 10 years ago when Bishop Williamson, in a letter or an interview, made a negative statement about women earning college degrees how ridiculously the "degreed" women in our chapel reacted- so insulted. Feminists! whether they admit it or not.
Women who go to college will most likely want to marry a man with a college degree, which takes most traditional Catholic young men, who want to avoid the perils of college life, out of the running for courtship.
-
True, but that kind of proves my point. Most women-heck, most men!-without a college degree or training in mathematics is not going to be able to teach high school math, at least not beyond Algebra I.
Proves your point about what? Most people never use high school math period. Those who want their children to be mathematically literate could hire tutors. If that's what they really wanted.
In fact most people with college degree are not going to be able to teach their children high school mathematics. Because they've forgotten and never used it. It's ridiculous to me the excuse for college and college tuition is being given that it's needed to homeschool in mathematics.
Certainly college in general is not a good idea for women, but I don't believe that a year or two at a Catholic liberal arts college is necessarily bad.
"Catholic liberal arts college" - this is your eupehmism for St. Mary's?
St. Mary's isn't so bad, they probably won't learn learn math to home school their children any other way, and all women need to learn trig to home school their children?
It depends on individual circuмstances.
In the future schools will be increasingly regulated.
As the collapse of social order continues coordinated homeschooling is the solution for Catholics.
It can be done quite well, so long as genuinely intelligent and generous people are assisting parents. As opposed to meddlesome busy body types.
-
True, but that kind of proves my point. Most women-heck, most men!-without a college degree or training in mathematics is not going to be able to teach high school math, at least not beyond Algebra I.
Proves your point about what? Most people never use high school math period. Those who want their children to be mathematically literate could hire tutors. If that's what they really wanted.
In fact most people with college degree are not going to be able to teach their children high school mathematics. Because they've forgotten and never used it. It's ridiculous to me the excuse for college and college tuition is being given that it's needed to homeschool in mathematics.
Certainly college in general is not a good idea for women, but I don't believe that a year or two at a Catholic liberal arts college is necessarily bad.
"Catholic liberal arts college" - this is your eupehmism for St. Mary's?
St. Mary's isn't so bad, they probably won't learn learn math to home school their children any other way, and all women need to learn trig to home school their children?
It depends on individual circuмstances.
In the future schools will be increasingly regulated.
As the collapse of social order continues coordinated homeschooling is the solution for Catholics.
It can be done quite well, so long as genuinely intelligent and generous people are assisting parents. As opposed to meddlesome busy body types.
First off, I don't know what your problem with St. Mary's College is, but it is a Catholic liberal arts college, whether you like it or not.
Secondly my point is that most parents are not qualified to teach their children advanced math and should get them taught by someone else in those fields. Whether that is by sending them to school or getting a tutor or online classes, whatever works. It depends a great deal on individual circuмstances. My point is that parents should not assume that children will be able to teach themselves this stuff. Most kids can't, no matter how smart they are.
As far as college goes, I don't believe that it is necessarily bad for some young women to broaden their intellectual horizons with Catholic learning at a Catholic (truly Catholic, not the Catholic in name only places like Notre Dame, Georgetown etc.) university. Training for a profession or career is a different matter. Doing such a thing puts women in a position to compete with men, be in charge of men, etc. This not only is bad for men, but also degrades the true femininity of women and separates them from their natural purpose. A woman who learns about St. Thomas and St. Augustine at a Catholic school is going to be quite different, and much better, then someone who learns about Hegel and Kant at Big State University.
We need to avoid the perils of anti-intellectualism. It's a scourge in the traditional community and makes a mockery of 20 centuries of Catholic intellectual life. And it is quite alive and well on this thread, with many posters even saying men should not go to college, for any reason!
-
Yes, children can certainly learn a great deal independently, but for most children that is not the case for advanced subjects.
And please don't get me started on the Saxon series. That series was a product of 60's thinking that children could learn merely by absorption, without learning in an incremental, concrete manner, moving from more basic topics to more complex. I used Saxon up until 11th grade and hated it. Once I got different textbooks my grades shot up. I have talked to numerous other students and every single one of them despised the Saxon math series. Why on earth anyone recommends them is beyond me.
I really don't understand why people are opposed to sending their children to CATHOLIC schools. We aren't talking Novus ordo or public schools for crying out loud! I don't care if you're SSPX or FSSP or sede or whatever, if there is a good traditional Catholic school, why not send your children there?
As far as women going to college, well yes that is bad, save for a few exceptions. I stated that earlier. Why on earth would someone thumb me down for saying that? Some damn feminist? Or someone who thumbs me down regardless of what I say because I'm a "Fellayite"? Get a grip people. We aren't discussing the SSPX situation right now. If someone doesn't like what I said about women not learning a profession, grow a pair and tell me why they should! If someone thinks a person with an 8th grade education can teach calculus and trigonometry, tell me why!
Saxon is incremental, and children learning by absorption is not what it's about. He compared to learning math to learning how to drive that children need less theory and more practice . Here is an interview with the author:
edited: link does not work, you have to download the alternate format:
http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p655.htm#Message3339
I'm not saying everyone should use Saxon. Many don't like how geometry isn't a separate book. Saxons is sef-teaching and widely available but there are many others. Someone gave me a copy of Teaching Textbooks in Sept. I haven't had time to do more than glance at it but it looks great so far.
My point was there are plenty of alternatives to mothers teaching higher math. Using Saxon is one of them.
The biggest problem with Saxon IMO is that there is almost no explanation and no theory. He seems to think that people learn only by doing. That is insane, especially with math. One has to have a solid grasp of the theory and principles behind things before putting them into practice. Obviously practice is hugely important; in high school I used to do about 50+ problems a week, minimum. It's all disconnected and jumbled however because he doesn't provide any principles or theoretical framework for what you're learning. You can figure out how to do a problem, but you have no idea of the underlying mathematical principles of the solutions. Saxon seems to think people will just kind of pick up on things magically.
My younger siblings used Math-U-See, and they were far better at math than I was. I had to overcome the handicaps imposed by years of Saxon's garbage by studying a lot harder in high school than most of my peers. Now I am taking Calculus III at university for my engineering degree. Saxon did nothing to help me; the only reason I am good at math now is due to high school at an SSPX school and some fantastic teachers who helped me out a great deal.
What you're hearing is years of frustration with Saxon's non-existent explanations and poor examples! This has been the constant complaint of every person I have spoken to who has experience with Saxon. In almost every case when they switched textbooks, math started to make sense!
-
We need to avoid the perils of anti-intellectualism.
Yes, and pretending that St. Mary's is the solution to that is a problem.
Anti-intellectualism often comes from obscurantism, and the neo-SSPX approach to Rome and the promotion of blind obedience to clerics without authority is obscurantist.
The belief that so-called "higher education" should be a "default" is in fact a kind of anti-intellectualism. It depends on many false ideas about what the very term "intellectual" means.
1) Most people who go to college are woefully ignorant about the world by design.
2) Most people who go to college do not understand that their education as far as truly intellectual matters are concerned is not serious. No one will take their thinking seriously
3) Most people who have gone to college look down on people more intelligent than them who have not gone
4) Most people who have gone to college lose all respect for authorities "outside the mainstream" and mistake that for critical thinking.
5) Most people who go to college think other people should go to college too.
Now don't get me wrong, practically speaking most people who don't go to college won't ever be quite as "sophisticated" as those who do go. However, that "sophistication" is wasted on the vast majority of people.
People with high IQs don't need college to develop their intellects, they just need skilled tutors.
The function of modern college is not education but socialization.
Socialization to conform to an anti-intellectual, anti-Catholic society.
-
I've seen Saxon and it was something of a nuisance. A test was expected to be given every week - that really cut into instruction time.
I don't think it would do harm though.
Children should be taught skill in arithmetic (number sense) and Euclid's geometry.
Then learning analytical geometry, algebra, and calculus should be no problem.
-
number sense is actually the most practical mathematics, and it's never taught, instead students are subjected to relentless, interminable repetition.
-
1) Most people who go to college are woefully ignorant about the world by design.
2) Most people who go to college do not understand that their education as far as truly intellectual matters are concerned is not serious. No one will take their thinking seriously
3) Most people who have gone to college look down on people more intelligent than them who have not gone
4) Most people who have gone to college lose all respect for authorities "outside the mainstream" and mistake that for critical thinking.
5) Most people who go to college think other people should go to college too.
This is all true, but I am not speaking of people in general. I am speaking about traditional Catholics-mainly Catholic men. An intelligent Catholic man should at a minimum consider college, instead of writing it off because he's too afraid to face the world or battle the heretics and fools that reside there (I've gotten into some pretty big arguments with people at university, mainly Prots. So much fun since they get confused very easily :ready-to-eat:).
One must avoid both intellectual snobbery and anti-intellectualism. However the predominant trend in traditional circles is anti-intellectualism, and that is a problem.
Yes, and pretending that St. Mary's is the solution to that is a problem.
I'm not saying it the the solution, but is a possible solution, and despite the small size it is a very decent school. Surely you would not prefer a mainstream Catholic university? And tutors are not an option for a lot of people. There aren't a great deal of Catholic private tutors just sitting around.
-
The biggest problem with Saxon IMO is that there is almost no explanation and no theory. He seems to think that people learn only by doing. That is insane, especially with math. One has to have a solid grasp of the theory and principles behind things before putting them into practice. Obviously practice is hugely important; in high school I used to do about 50+ problems a week, minimum. It's all disconnected and jumbled however because he doesn't provide any principles or theoretical framework for what you're learning. You can figure out how to do a problem, but you have no idea of the underlying mathematical principles of the solutions. Saxon seems to think people will just kind of pick up on things magically.
My younger siblings used Math-U-See, and they were far better at math than I was. I had to overcome the handicaps imposed by years of Saxon's garbage by studying a lot harder in high school than most of my peers. Now I am taking Calculus III at university for my engineering degree. Saxon did nothing to help me; the only reason I am good at math now is due to high school at an SSPX school and some fantastic teachers who helped me out a great deal.
What you're hearing is years of frustration with Saxon's non-existent explanations and poor examples! This has been the constant complaint of every person I have spoken to who has experience with Saxon. In almost every case when they switched textbooks, math started to make sense!
I started out with my older children using Saxon and switched to Math-U-See for the younger ones. But one of my kids liked Saxon and did well with it. And one of them did not like Math-U-see. Part of it is simply matching the kids up with the program that works best for them.
-
The function of modern college is not education but socialization.
Socialization to conform to an anti-intellectual, anti-Catholic society.
I agree the this describes secular college. I'm thinking that sending my children to a small (real) Catholic college could be an opportunity for them to experience living in a Catholic culture.
-
The problem is, most "Catholic" colleges and schools aren't truly Catholic nowadays.
-
Yes, children can certainly learn a great deal independently, but for most children that is not the case for advanced subjects.
And please don't get me started on the Saxon series. That series was a product of 60's thinking that children could learn merely by absorption, without learning in an incremental, concrete manner, moving from more basic topics to more complex. I used Saxon up until 11th grade and hated it. Once I got different textbooks my grades shot up. I have talked to numerous other students and every single one of them despised the Saxon math series. Why on earth anyone recommends them is beyond me.
I wholeheartedly agree with this part of your quote. Saxon Math is USELESS and confusing, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. The person who put this series together made a boatload of money keeping children ignorant in a logical progression of mathematics.
The most useful place for a Saxon Math book is a book burning party.
-
Have any of you the experience of actually living on a college campus? I do. I wasn't a drinker/partyer type but EVERYONE else was. And the...how can I put this delicately....the "swapping" that went on, smoking, very loud hip hop thug music, drugs, crime.............
This was at a small midwestern COMMUNITY COLLEGE for pete's sake. Even if your daughter isn't doing these things herself, trust me, she is sharing a room with another young woman who comes in drunk at 3 am and is inviting guys in for some very noisy activities. Or she's being propositioned by other females to engage in sodomy. And the RM's don't do a thing about it.
Maybe you should consider an online university.
I've attended a small Midwestern engineering school and no, not every one is having unprotected sex with multiple partners while smoking dope.
I've had a number of roommates over the years, and not one of them has ever brought a woman back for... amorous activities.
And, online universities are crap. Most of them are for-profit and offer NOTHING except an overpriced piece of paper that gets you nothing.
-
I've attended a small Midwestern engineering school
First off all you were a male of college age, secondly you were at a small engineering school.
I've had a number of roommates over the years, and not one of them has ever brought a woman back
Again, see first response.
Catechist99 is telling us what things look like from the woman's perspective.
I have no doubt she is telling the truth. I also have no doubt you're telling the truth.
Incidentally, no one is arguing against young men going to engineering school.
(although I would suggest it's not a good choice for those who are not so inclined)
-
I've attended a small Midwestern engineering school
First off all you're male, secondly you were at a small engineering school.
I've had a number of roommates over the years, and not one of them has ever brought a woman back
Again, see first response.
Well, Catechist was smearing an entire group of people wrongfully.
And the women I knew at engineering school (the vast majority of them) were not sɛҳuąƖly active and they chose their roommates appropriately. Typically, the "loose women" would move off campus.
-
Catechist is a woman? O.o
-
I've lived on a college campus. My experience is much like Catechist99's.
Sometimes I'm confused by the tone of "it can't be that bad" when it comes to this subject. :facepalm:
I'm not sure what practical value a couple years of liberal arts school has. It's expensive, and employers want degrees. A two year "general" degree (as opposed to an applied science degree) is worthless on its own.
I don't think there needs to be a set grade for ending a girl's academic experience. If she stays at home, she can continue to be reading and studying. There is no reason she needs to be kept ignorant. It's just that thinking formal education makes her more valuable is not a good way to look at this issue. It's almost like saying a woman should be able to withstand a certain amount of corruption to prove herself.
-
Yes, children can certainly learn a great deal independently, but for most children that is not the case for advanced subjects.
And please don't get me started on the Saxon series. That series was a product of 60's thinking that children could learn merely by absorption, without learning in an incremental, concrete manner, moving from more basic topics to more complex. I used Saxon up until 11th grade and hated it. Once I got different textbooks my grades shot up. I have talked to numerous other students and every single one of them despised the Saxon math series. Why on earth anyone recommends them is beyond me.
I wholeheartedly agree with this part of your quote. Saxon Math is USELESS and confusing, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. The person who put this series together made a boatload of money keeping children ignorant in a logical progression of mathematics.
The most useful place for a Saxon Math book is a book burning party.
Don't get me wrong: this whole thread is very interesting, but here an off-topic
theme has me very intrigued. What is this "Saxon Math" thing you are all worked
up about? Can you briefly describe it? Or is there some other thread that goes
into detail on it? How would I know if any particular curriculum uses it? I raised
children and never heard of it. Is it possible that one of my children was subject
to its influence and suffered in Mathematics classes as a result without my
knowing it?
How does "keeping children ignorant" happen "in a logical progression of
mathematics?"
-
Have any of you the experience of actually living on a college campus? I do. I wasn't a drinker/partyer type but EVERYONE else was. And the...how can I put this delicately....the "swapping" that went on, smoking, very loud hip hop thug music, drugs, crime.............
This was at a small midwestern COMMUNITY COLLEGE for pete's sake. Even if your daughter isn't doing these things herself, trust me, she is sharing a room with another young woman who comes in drunk at 3 am and is inviting guys in for some very noisy activities. Or she's being propositioned by other females to engage in sodomy. And the RM's don't do a thing about it.
Maybe you should consider an online university.
I've attended a small Midwestern engineering school and no, not every one is having unprotected sex with multiple partners while smoking dope.
I've had a number of roommates over the years, and not one of them has ever brought a woman back for... amorous activities.
And, online universities are crap. Most of them are for-profit and offer NOTHING except an overpriced piece of paper that gets you nothing.
Not true. Many long standing, not for profit, brick and mortar institutions offer online courses/degrees. Many state universities offer entire bachelor's degree programs online. The degree itself is identical. It's true that many online colleges are a scam, but a public university that offers distance learning is not the same thing.
Also, I have a bachelor's degree and I have never even taken calculus. I would need assistance/refresher teaching algebra and geometry to high school age kids. Does that mean I should have a master's degree before I homeschool? Or should have chosen to study the sciences even though I barely survived those classes?
-
Not true. Many long standing, not for profit, brick and mortar institutions offer online courses/degrees. Many state universities offer entire bachelor's degree programs online. The degree itself is identical. It's true that many online colleges are a scam, but a public university that offers distance learning is not the same thing.
Also, I have a bachelor's degree and I have never even taken calculus. I would need assistance/refresher teaching algebra and geometry to high school age kids. Does that mean I should have a master's degree before I homeschool? Or should have chosen to study the sciences even though I barely survived those classes?
You're right, distance learning isn't the same, which is why I said "online universities."
-
The problem is, most "Catholic" colleges and schools aren't truly Catholic nowadays.
Colleges that deserve the name Catholic are very rare but there are a few. From a worldly perspective they are useless since they tend to lack government accreditation. But I can see some value in attending a school like this in helping one's faith formation.
-
I'm single, never married, no children, female and have to support myself. I've done so since moving from my parents' home at age 18. It was "expected". I hold two Masters degrees and approx. 60 hours of post grad. credits. The culture on-campus of a large public University in the mid 1970s drove me to seek elsewhere for satisfaction in life. I converted at age 45. If it were not for those slips of paper in my safe, I'd most likely be on welfare or miserably married for the income. With all due respect to Bishop Williamson (and some others on this site), my case IS the rare exception. I believe His Excellency would agree!
-
I have a science degree but I'm a stay at home, homeschooling mom. I find my education helps me with teaching math to my high schooler.
I do plan on returning to work after my children leave home because my husband and I have no retirement money saved. I will probably earn more than him because he is uneducated.
So one of the unintended consequences of a girl going to college is that she may be more educated than her husband and that does cause problems in the marriage with respect to his authority because he won't be the "smart" one.
-
And the women I knew at engineering school (the vast majority of them) were not sɛҳuąƖly active and they chose their roommates appropriately. Typically, the "loose women" would move off campus.[/quote]
When did you attend school? At a large state university 1978-1982, the shennanigans took place on campus. I lived there one semester and moved to a firetrap of an apartment to escape the Animal House. Everything and anything was tolerated--and paid for with tax dollars and from parents' pocketbooks. Sadly, those working their way through had to foot the bill as well. But I've no complaints. My public education taught me what I DID NOT want from life!
-
I attended what is widely considered one of the "best" Universities in Europe, and top 50 in the world. I can confirm that our soon-to-be academic elite are utterly liberal, utterly perverted, and totally morally bankrupt. I opted to run like hell from that cesspool, and I can safely say that abandoning University was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
-
I became a traditional Catholic during my college years. Even if I had been a trad Catholic beforehand, I still would have gone on to college for the main reason of being able to support myself until I married (not knowing whether that would be my vocation).
There were no 'selection' of men at our chapel for me to consider and I wasn't "into" the Internet back then - thus, no using Catholic dating sites or whatever. And having had the fire of a newbie trad underneath me, I only wanted to marry a trad Catholic.
I have put my degrees to good use. Before I was married with children, I supported myself and helped my family. Once I had children, I quite working 'outside' the house and use my learning with my children. If anything happens to my husband, such as becoming disabled, I will be able to help out financially. The potential is there.
My sister, who is 36 and unmarried, thankfully has a degree so that she has a decent paying job with health insurance (for what that's worth right now!). At this point, I don't see her getting married. At least she can support herself and not rely on the gov't.
I, also, have a trad friend who listened to a good bishop when she graduated high school - who told her not to attend college as her vocation was to be married. So, she didn't She got married two years later. She had two children and then her husband left her and the kids!! I can't even begin to tell you what a mess ensued. Moreover, she had no degree or training to get a job to raise her kids decently, pay the mortgage, gas, car repairs, lawyer fees, etc. She cleaned houses and tried to homeschool her kids all at the same time -- and it was terrible.
In today's world, I think that some post-high school education or training is needed by women - because you just never know anymore. Unfortunately.
(and I don't even think college is for everyone - go to culinary school or a trade school or something like that...)
-
Olive. Were you able to get through college without taking out student loans? I've heard that the debt that most students amass is huge and they spend years, even decades, carrying those debts which ultimately get added onto other debts like mortgage and auto loans. I've also read that many many people don't get hired in the field in which they've trained, or are hired at such a low rate that trying to pay off the student loans with that income is just crushing. How does a woman plan to quit a job when she marries while still carrying all that debt?
-
I did not incur student loans. I had some scholarship, money I had saved from working (and worked during college too), and my parents' help. I studied hard and earned a full-ride scholarship for grad school. For me, it worked out. This was in the 80s when college was more affordable, unlike today's price tag.
I would not send a child away to university today though. My kids know that the local community college is where they will go if that is their path.
-
As a recently retired college professor (28 years at a secular university) it is my opinion that neither male nor female traditional Catholics should attend a public university. The toxic environment includes overwhelming support for sɛҳuąƖ perversion, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, feminism, abortion, mercy killing. Systematically opposed are Christianity, Western Civilization, the rule of law, logic, critical thinking. As a "spy behind enemy lines," I was doing what G-d called me to do, until He made it clear to me that it was time to get out.