Author Topic: Women, rational thought, and University education (Read 2352 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 18, 2011, 01:40:57 PM »

Remember Bishop Williamson's (in)famous essay against women in university?

He made many cogent points, and it's hard to find fault with his logic.

In fact, I agree with him.

The problem is getting others to understand what he was trying to teach. That is, it's very easy to misunderstand or jump to conclusions, especially nowadays when most peoples' thinking is very fuzzy indeed.

There's certainly something there:

There's the "man's world", and then there's the "woman's world".
God DID create them male and female, and the differences go far beyond "plumbing".
God intended for male and female to be complementary, not interchangeable!
Rational discourse seems to be more suited to the male mind -- and this is borne out in one's day-to-day experience.

In short, men are more logical and rational in general. Women tend to use intuition and feeling, which actually helps in certain cases but it is a huge liability in others. For example, it doesn't make for smooth Message Board discussion. :wink:

Of course, just like with physical strength, the degree of difference varies by individual. There are female body builders who could beat up certain "nerdy" or "wimpy" males. Likewise, there are some men who can't think to save themselves, and are the "worst of both worlds" neither male nor female, really. Also, there are some women who can carry on and follow a logical, methodical argument.

But the exception doesn't invalidate the rule.

Matthew

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2011, 02:14:14 PM »

The sad fact is that most traditionalists today have internalized non-Catholic and modern values to such an extent that they have a split mind.

You have lots of fathers that are most concerned with worldly success for their daughters - lots of fathers that have no scruples about using the feminist welfare/police state against sons in laws or potential sons in laws.

It's a phenomenon similar to voting Republican or being a big flag waver that loves militaristic patriotism.

Tell them about Bush's family being big into family planning or about Zionist influence on US foreign policy and they get angry with you - they start calling you names.

Sometimes it's just sheer ignorance, but othertimes I don' t know. Sometimes I wonder how many trads are like other conservatives who don't really take the religion seriously except for ways they find it useful.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2011, 02:23:56 PM »

Years ago, my brother and I had a three-hour conversation at the dinner table. It was after some family meal like Thanksgiving. Anyway, my mother, sister, and sister-in-law all left the table over the course of this discussion. During the entire three hours, things NEVER got personal from either side. That night, or the next day, or at some point shortly thereafter, I learned that the ladies thought the argument was getting personal. Why?

Women are hard-wired differently than men (which is wonderful, as it is God's will). In general, women understand/hear things to be personal that are, in fact, nothing of the kind, especially if the topic itself is hot/loaded/controversial in nature. How many women just read that last sentence and took it, at least somewhat, personally? "GV just insulted/demeaned/whatever ALL women!!" :faint:

Bottom line: The average man can discuss things for hours without taking great personal offense at the points made by those with whom he disagrees. The average woman cannot do this. Yes, there are exceptions, but life proves this is the rule.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2011, 02:35:20 PM »

GV - said - "Years ago, my brother"

You mean there is another like you???? :stare:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:13:38 PM »

LOL! I am the youngest of three. Age-wise, my sister is between my brother and I.

Actually, Myrna, my brother and I are VERY different, especially with respect to how we see the world. Sure, we have some strong similarities, but he and I walk different roads.

He voted for BO and is among the few that still strongly support him. He dressed up for last Halloween as, get this...El Liberal...mascot and hero for the asylum we call the world. His outfit was complete: tights, a cape, and a big L on his chest.

He is a better man than I in many ways, but his mind is filled with some wild ideas.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:50:04 PM »

Yeah, I was hung up upon by a female friend when she began to mock unions and revealed a Tea Party streak. She went so far as to blame our economic woes on the poor wittle corporations being over-taxed.

Whenever there's a disagreement, she feels personally attacked and curls into her shell. I didn't get that angry, but I did animatedly defend my position. She didn't care for it.

Meanwhile, I had dinner with my dad last night, who is Novus Ordo, and we calmly discussed some very volatile issues hinging on eternal salvation ( i.e. that he may not be in the way of it ). Issues much bigger than those I spoke about with my female friend. Yet we hugged afterwards.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:55:46 PM »

Then again, I hung up on a female friend fairly recently too...

She kept repeating "You're not holy! You're not holy!" While that may be true, I took issue with her need to repeat it over and over, especially since I never said I was holy in the first place. Then she said I wasn't a truth-teller and I hung up.

There is humility, and then there is masochism. It's a fine line. There's no reason to be friends with someone who gratuitously insults you, in my view, though we all have to put up with flaws in each other. If I were in a monastery I might have to put up with something like that, but I'm not in a monastery. I can choose my friends, and that means people who seem to have a modicuм of respect for me.

This person is on the site, by the way :detective: We have since patched it up.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2011, 04:02:53 PM »

[edited; not germane]

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2011, 05:23:38 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Remember Bishop Williamson's (in)famous essay against women in university?

He made many cogent points, and it's hard to find fault with his logic.

In fact, I agree with him.

Another issue is sustainability. Can a planet with finite natural resources support universal equality and suffrage? In other words, if everyone on the planet, both male and female, as well as all races decide to "live like Americans," what will the World be like? I know that many of you do not believe in global warming, but when the current CO2 levels rise to 1000 ppm (parts per million), it will be obvious to everyone that American capitalism, a product of the deistic Enlightenment, as well as universal suffrage and equality, another of its offspring, amounted to a dismal and abject failure.

We, as a society, have given women the freedom to look, act, and above all else, dress like men, and it is little wonder that the average American man and woman, after finding that perfect, beautiful mate, turn into hedonistic gluttons. Beauty and wealth, not eternal life (which everyone assumes they will have), is what drives Americans.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2011, 06:59:11 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

In other words, if everyone on the planet, both male and female, as well as all races decide to "live like Americans," what will the World be like?

This presumes all would want to live in such a way. It also presumes that it is possible for everyone to do so. It is not. Even our small population is only able to live the way we do because we have had, for a short time, an (incredibly inflated) illusion of prosperity. We do not live upon what we HAVE, but upon what we BORROW. That is complete nonsense and is not, in fact, sustainable.

IOW, there is no real need to worry about what cannot come to pass.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2011, 07:48:41 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Jehanne
In other words, if everyone on the planet, both male and female, as well as all races decide to "live like Americans," what will the World be like?

This presumes all would want to live in such a way. It also presumes that it is possible for everyone to do so. It is not. Even our small population is only able to live the way we do because we have had, for a short time, an (incredibly inflated) illusion of prosperity. We do not live upon what we HAVE, but upon what we BORROW. That is complete nonsense and is not, in fact, sustainable.

IOW, there is no real need to worry about what cannot come to pass.

Tell that to India and China, and even Russia. They all want "the good life." In a sense, I can't blame them. Time will, of course, tell. I do not have a crystal ball, but when CO2 levels exceed 1000 ppm, the environment will likely soon after collapse.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2011, 08:00:38 PM »

Every man SHOULD want a good life. I am saying the entire world will NEVER define it in exactly the same way. If you take away TV and the pop-culture crap that is broadcast to the entire world, what people actually desire would change notably.

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2011, 10:08:02 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Another issue is sustainability. Can a planet with finite natural resources support universal equality and suffrage? In other words, if everyone on the planet, both male and female, as well as all races decide to "live like Americans," what will the World be like? I know that many of you do not believe in global warming, but when the current CO2 levels rise to 1000 ppm (parts per million), it will be obvious to everyone that American capitalism, a product of the deistic Enlightenment, as well as universal suffrage and equality, another of its offspring, amounted to a dismal and abject failure.
[/quote

Weather or not Global Warming would be a factor is irrelevant to the systems sustainability. The fact is regardless of what happens with the environment, capitalism cant stand on it's own two feet. Think about it, we have so much capital/wealth locked up at the top in bank vaults, so much so that we need to create more wealth out of thin air (making it worthless) in order to satisfy the demand for mediums of trade and be able to continue functioning. On top of that, we have the consumerism of the masses which outweighs the production. For example, we have 1% of the population producing food for the other %99 of the population. And because many of us rely on debt for our sustainance we are eating ourselves out of house and home.

Jehanne · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2011, 10:12:39 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Samurai

Weather or not Global Warming would be a factor is irrelevant to the systems sustainability. The fact is regardless of what happens with the environment, capitalism cant stand on it's own two feet. Think about it, we have so much capital/wealth locked up at the top in bank vaults, so much so that we need to create more wealth out of thin air (making it worthless) in order to satisfy the demand for mediums of trade and be able to continue functioning. On top of that, we have the consumerism of the masses which outweighs the production. For example, we have 1% of the population producing food for the other %99 of the population. And because many of us rely on debt for our sustainance we are eating ourselves out of house and home.

I agree. It's just that the environment, which allows us to live, is taking a pounding. The system will collapse, eventually, probably from multiple causes. Certainly, in the short term, the "gravy train" will have to end, which, of course, it will not. So, eventually, the bubble is going to burst.

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2011, 10:23:20 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

I agree. It's just that the environment, which allows us to live, is taking a pounding.

Only it's not the CO2 that's causing it. One of the biggest problems is the amount of heavy metals that are released into the air by petroleum and other substances. High amounts of aluminum in soil, for example, inhibit plant growth and seed germination, as well as cause heavy metal poisoning in the long run in mammals.

CO2 Nature can suck up via plants and put it in the ground any day all day. Accuмulations of heavy metals, however, take centuries to put back underground where they belong because they have to be reburied.