Author Topic: Women going to college? (Read 42391 times)

Caraffa · « **Reply #105 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:35:28 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

The vast majority of men are not ladies men. I'm pretty sure most of us think that seducers should be in a certain amount of peril for their behavior, but the fact of the matter that very seldom happens these days, and that's because women empower them.

This is something that no one brings up; it was the feminists who wanted the last of the remaining seduction laws to be either unforced and/or taken off the books.

s2srea · « **Reply #106 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:42:24 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Telesphorus
The vast majority of men are not ladies men. I'm pretty sure most of us think that seducers should be in a certain amount of peril for their behavior, but the fact of the matter that very seldom happens these days, and that's because women empower them.

This is something that no one brings up; it was the feminists who wanted the last of the remaining seduction laws to be either unforced and/or taken off the books.

Do you have a source for this? What were the seduction laws about?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #107 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:54:45 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Telesphorus
The vast majority of men are not ladies men. I'm pretty sure most of us think that seducers should be in a certain amount of peril for their behavior, but the fact of the matter that very seldom happens these days, and that's because women empower them.

This is something that no one brings up; it was the feminists who wanted the last of the remaining seduction laws to be either unforced and/or taken off the books.

Caraffa, don't these people understand the irony?

Feminists don't want to get rid of cads. A sociopathic cad at that church would still be there. It's a man who doesn't take advantage, but who believes that women behave honestly and decently that is ostracized and hated.

It's very clear to me when wallflower attacks past society and then blames the current situation on women rebelling against the old system, and talks about "not all tradition is Catholic" etc - that she is very much in favor of the feminist revolution. I really don't think she would approve of any punishment for sins or increased responsibility for women in this society, of any kind.

A lot of these Trad women are fully on board with feminism, it is a lot easier to claim to be seriously against abortion and contraception and premarital sex, than to find people who actually want to do something about it other than put on a show, wear t-shirts, etc.

Someone stated that saying mass outside an abortion clinic was reminiscent of the conquistadores.

Uh, no. The conquistadores utterly smashed the Aztec worship. The last thing the vast majority of the pro-life people will do is to seriously support steps that can lead to the end of legal abortion, just as, in their own private lives, when push comes to shove, there is typically an uspoken acceptance of loose sɛҳuąƖ mores.

I think saying a mass in the presence of murder might well be sacrilegious.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #108 on:** May 02, 2012, 06:00:27 PM »

correction: but who believes that women should behave honestly and decently who is ostracized and hated.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #109 on:** May 02, 2012, 06:15:33 PM »

corrections (in reverse order):

Feminism is a payback for men holding women responsible, according to wallflower, it's not about the fact that society used to hold women responsible but then stopped doing it.

Your rationalization hamster blames men as a class for feminism, just as it tries to pin the responsibility on men as a class for the small minority of very "successful" seducers- when it is women in general who are empowering those seducers - women are the ones who are responsible for their "success."

Caraffa · « **Reply #110 on:** May 02, 2012, 06:43:11 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Caraffa
Quote from: Telesphorus
The vast majority of men are not ladies men. I'm pretty sure most of us think that seducers should be in a certain amount of peril for their behavior, but the fact of the matter that very seldom happens these days, and that's because women empower them.

This is something that no one brings up; it was the feminists who wanted the last of the remaining seduction laws to be either unforced and/or taken off the books.

Do you have a source for this?

Sure.
"Ironically, it was the first wave of feminists, beginning in the 1930s, who spearheaded the campaign to do away with seduction suits, says Mary Coombs, a legal historian and visiting professor at Boston University School of Law." Chicago Tribune, "Don Juan in Court," Jan 5, 1993.

Quote

What were the seduction laws about?

Seduction laws have to do with convincing someone to have illicit sex. The person doing the seducing may have used suasion or promises that they may or may not have intended to keep. A good example of a seduction law is in Scripture from Dueteronomy 22:28-29:

"[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life."

Graham · « **Reply #111 on:** May 02, 2012, 07:09:06 PM »

He's right about wallflower. I didn't realize that till lately. :judge:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #112 on:** May 02, 2012, 07:36:33 PM »

Quote from: Graham

He's right about wallflower. I didn't realize that till lately. :judge:

Wallflower isn't totally wrong. It would help a great deal if men, Catholic men, were more virtuous. If I had been more virtuous I could have won the girl I loved. However, women today very often treat virtuous men badly and reward bad behavior. Under feminism men are hated more for being angry at injustices than women are for committing injustice.

I've heard many people, when excusing the impunity for feminine conduct, speak of "free will" - it reminds me a lot of the talk about "religious freedom" - at some level, there's a secret indifferentism there. As has been said, the ideas of sɛҳuąƖ morality for women have been made into a purely theoretical matter, where judgment for sɛҳuąƖ sin is to have nothing to do with behavior in concrete circuмstances. This is of course absurd, because sɛҳuąƖ sin violates the natural law. Men are who have to raise cuckold children suffer a greater injury than women whose husbands spawn bastards. They are both committing a grave sin, but the first sin is more serious. It is a greater cause for outrage. This is really obvious. But when ideas about sɛҳuąƖ sin becomes merely a theory with no serious influence on behavior because of the fact of bad and presumptuous confessions being commonplace, and the reaction to any real check on the "free will" (ie, impunity for bad conduct) is hysteria, then there is a serious social problem.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #113 on:** May 02, 2012, 07:41:28 PM »

The last guy I heard about talking about "free will" was talking in relation to abortion. He's an ex-Anglican orthodox married to a feminist with daughters.

How shameful it must be to be married to a feminist. What a sad life that must be.

Graham · « **Reply #114 on:** May 02, 2012, 07:55:31 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Graham
He's right about wallflower. I didn't realize that till lately. :judge:

Wallflower isn't totally wrong. It would help a great deal if men, Catholic men, were more virtuous.

Of course not, that's why I took so long to recognize the feminist influence.

WRT virtue, the issue is that the conservatives have subverted the meaning of manly virtue - now it refers to making women's lives "as pleasant as possible."

Quote

I've heard many people, when excusing the impunity for feminine conduct, speak of "free will" - it reminds me a lot of the talk about "religious freedom" - at some level, there's a secret indifferentism there. As has been said, the ideas of sɛҳuąƖ morality for women have been made into a purely theoretical matter, where judgment for sɛҳuąƖ sin is to have nothing to do with behavior in concrete circuмstances. This is of course absurd, because sɛҳuąƖ sin violates the natural law. Men are who have to raise cuckold children suffer a greater injury than women whose husbands spawn bastards. They are both committing a grave sin, but the first sin is more serious. It is a greater cause for outrage. This is really obvious. But when ideas about sɛҳuąƖ sin becomes merely a theory with no serious influence on behavior because of the fact of bad and presumptuous confessions being commonplace, and the reaction to any real check on the "free will" (ie, impunity for bad conduct) is hysteria, then there is a serious social problem.

Yes, they can be sneaky, but eventually the details cease to add up, patterns emerge, and you realize that they really do have a lenient or liberal tendency.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #115 on:** May 02, 2012, 08:01:35 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Yes, they can be sneaky, but eventually the details cease to add up, patterns emerge, and you realize that they really do have a lenient or liberal tendency.

Yes, and the scary thing is that you begin to realize is the patterns among young Trads are far closer to the norms of 2012 than the norms of 1958, this despite the fact they are often given very sheltered upbringings.

Of course, what was the average age of marriage in the 1950s?

My grandfather married my grandmother within a month of coming home from the war. (Jan 1946) Today people get extremely angry at you if you don't consent to delay marriage for 6 months for a party.

There seems to be more concern about parties than about avoiding sin.

There seems to be more indignation at speaking against drunkenness than there is at drunkenness.

Sede Catholic · « **Reply #116 on:** May 02, 2012, 08:49:56 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Graham
Yes, they can be sneaky, but eventually the details cease to add up, patterns emerge, and you realize that they really do have a lenient or liberal tendency.

Yes, and the scary thing is that you begin to realize is the patterns among young Trads are far closer to the norms of 2012 than the norms of 1958, this despite the fact they are often given very sheltered upbringings...

Yes, Tele and Graham, you are onto something important here.

It is often hard even for traditional Catholics to see these trends.

Many simply do not see them.

But patterns can be discerned.

And one of the reasons why things are so lax is that no one now remembers what it was like to live in a society

with a normal moral code.

The evil ideas have been around for a long time, but they only prevailed in the A.D. 1960's.

However, even that is now over half a century ago.

Therefore, only the old actually remember what even a vaguely moral society looked like.

And even they only remember it how it was in the A.D. 1950's, which was still a very wicked society.

But better by a very long way than what exists today.

It is the absence of any concrete example from living memory to look up to, which leaves everyone feeling too
calm about the state of things.

If we had all lived in the twelfth century, and suddenly ended up in modern society, we would be horrified.

And we would all have such a right sense of morality that we would be too ashamed to live openly sinful lives.

One good way to see the true moral stance in any situation is to look at what was held in Catholic Europe in,

for example, A.D. 1200.

Also, to read books written by Catholics saints.

Or even to visit very good traditional Catholic websites such as:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/

which is one of the best sites on the internet.

It is the best website that I am aware of about what the ideal Catholic society could be like.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #117 on:** May 02, 2012, 09:55:18 PM »

Quote from: clare

And with male unchastity, there's the possibility of introducing a child into someone else's family... But that's not so serious....?

Just to make it perfectly clear, someone unmarried who would seduce another man's wife is committing a very grievous sin. It is more grievous than the sin of an unmarried woman who would seduce a married man. Both sins, of course, are very grievous, but the severity of the damage caused by the first is greater.

In a marriage, the adultery of the husband with an unmarried woman would be less grievous than the adultery of the wife.

Tiffany · « **Reply #118 on:** June 17, 2012, 07:13:21 PM »

Quote from: MrsZ

If I'd been able to choose the way things worked out in our family, it would look something like this:

I'd have been raised Traditional Catholic and so would my husband.

We would either have been farmers and lived out in the country, fulling self-sustaining....but we would have been within a reasonable distance to a traditional Catholic parish...OR,

We would have lived in a city that had a traditional Catholic parish.

We would have had a large family of homeschooled children. The parish community would provide tons of masses, tons of volunteer activities and tons of clubs and groups to provide myself and my family contact and interaction with fellow traditional Catholics.

Instead we are a small family. I did not become Catholic until after we married (in 1990) and didn't learn about Tradition until around 2002. We moved from a larger city to a tiny town (pop. 1,200) in 1998; and then another slightly larger town "next door" to the first (pop. 3,500) in 2007.

There is only Novus Ordo parishes in this county. Our neighborhood parish is n.o. and is filled with working mothers and publicly schooled kids.

We live in the nearly bankrupted state of California....businesses have failed everywhere .. and very noticeably in our town and in this county,. The ONLY thing going on around here is the schools, some small businesses and the local community college which is very limited in course selection due to lack of funding.

We can't sell our home because we owe more on it than it's "worth" and we can't rent it out because our mortgage is high.

What would you suggest for my daughter in this situation? Our son found his way out of the limitations by joining the fire dept. He's been to Academy, and he's got most of his certifications and his EMT. Only problem? He has yet to find a paying fire fighting job...and he's been applying all around for 2 years.

The local community college and maybe a part-time job, are her only options that I can see at this point to get out of the house. I don't have children for her to help me with ...and other than volunteering at the local church, I can't see any other options for her.

Any thoughts? What would YOU do?

What about crafting for charity? She could take knitting lessons at yarn shop, quilting lessons at a fabric store and so forth. Learning to sew apparel would be useful if she has daughters one day to make them modest dresses. There are so many charity crafting groups both IRL and virutal.

What about volunteering at a local hopsital or nursing home once or twice a week?

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #119 on:** July 09, 2012, 09:03:44 PM »

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all of this. It is interesting to read all the points of view. I might be a bit biased because I feel my college experience was negative .
I doubt any of my friends have the regrets that I do, but it is a matter of values and life goals. Most of my friends would laugh at my criticism of college for women.

I didn't have a strong desire to go away to school, but I wasn't given much of an option.
I was interested in learning many things (interior design, for example) that could have been achieved at a two year community college, at a much lower cost and without living on campus. It would not have required all the liberal arts courses either. My parents talked me into going away by making a 4 year degree seem like the minimal standard for life success.
Both my parents hold Master's degrees and my mother in particular felt that a 4 year (no matter how generic) was an essential back up even if I learned a trade later.

Quote from: Telesphorus

The main reason young women go to college is to "have fun" and because they're told to do it, and shamed into not doing it. The sad reality is that even the most ostensibly traditional girls end up being drunken party girls - and don't even try to kid us into believing most of them are chaste. The career aspect is clearly secondary for most of them. Indeed, those that intend to marry, but have a career first, are typically going into jobs and displacing would be bread earners when they're at the height of their fertility.

I think this illustrates some real understanding on your part, Telesphorus, as to just vulnerable young women are. Now, I personally was far from traditional when I entered college and was raised with relatively horrible values, however I was clearly way more innocent and naive than most of my college peers. I didn't manage very well and obviously made terrible mistakes. It is my fault, but a feminist society didn't help me much.

To have married at 18-19 would have been healthier for me, but would have unacceptable to family and friends so it is pointless to regret what I never knew was an option.

I will know better for my daughter. Hopefully I can find her a good father to reinforce the values I have for her.