CathInfo.com

Reading through her list, I think it's pretty safe to say she's a feminist -- at least as much of a feminist as one can possibly justify, while claiming to be conservative Catholic.

If feminism damages women, then she's certainly "damaged goods".

Undoubtedly. The user called "ClareBridget" (sp?) was outed (again) as a tranny and she came thundering to his defense. That's when someone enlightened some of us to that past scandal and it really put things in perspective for me. 

Here diatribe against "toxic Traddism" is a bunch of nonsense, as a whole, even if she occasionally hits on a valid concern.  It's a thinly veiled (actually, pretty transparent) attempt to rationalize her conformity with the modern world and attempting to elevate her compromises to a virtue.  I didn't that she and that forum were that foul, and I thank God that He pulled the plug on that trash.

Here diatribe against "toxic Traddism" is a bunch of nonsense, as a whole, even if she occasionally hits on a valid concern.  It's a thinly veiled (actually, pretty transparent) attempt to rationalize her conformity with the modern world and attempting to elevate her compromises to a virtue.  I didn't that she and that forum were that foul, and I thank God that He pulled the plug on that trash.

Exactly. It's like one giant strawman argument meant to demoralize those who wish to take Tradition seriously. Sure, she hits on some valid concerns here and there, but the number of trads who actually embody these "stereotypes" to the fullest (for lack of a better word) is quite minimal in real life, according to my own experience. 

I’m new here. Can someone explain what’s wrong with the list?  I hate liberalism as much as any of you do, but this list doesn’t seem liberal.  Am I missing something?

Let's first look at what is effectively the thesis statement of this article: 

I've often said that, while I support the idea of traditionalists gathering in groups of families and buying up apartment buildings, neighboring houses, and land in order to restore community, I'm not sure I'd want to live in one. Why? Religious addiction traditional Catholic style, or what I call "toxic traddism."

What is "toxic traddism"? It's a sort of gnosticism that's used to put Band-Aids on feelings of uncertainty, anomie, and emotional pain, and to exert control over others. It's rooted in a failure to master the moral virtues, and a rejection of the theological virtues, especially Faith and Charity; when present in a group of people, it looks like spiritually dangerous, psychologically unhealthy cult-like behavior.

Here she expresses discouragement for those traditional Catholics who earnestly desire to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King at the one of the smallest levels - the community. She wouldn't want to live in a traditional Catholic neighborhood because she thinks the inhabitants would be plagued by what she describes in her post-trad version of Luther's 99 Theses. 

Three points in her list that raised red flags, imo (I am sure there are other "red flags" here too, but these stuck out to me): 

are incapable of nuanced thought about things such as evolution, ghosts, women in trousers, astrology, amusement parks, the age of the earth, geocentrism or heliocentrism or other attempts to discern the center of the universe, tobacco use, poker, boxing, various symbols that look creepy to you, black and white check floor tiling patterns, the mano cornuta hand sign, etc. but have extremely strong opinions about them which you go on about in the manner of Jack Chick;

It seems quite disingenuous to place amusement parks, which are more or less morally neutral in principal, to evolution (one of the worst heresies, and one that dominates the modern mind!). If you have strong opinions (care about the truth, that is) and want to prove the falsity of evolution, well, you're an extremist like Jack Chick!

think not that fathers and husbands are the heads of their homes, but that men are the heads of women;

Compare this statement to that of St. Paul's, with emphasis added: 

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

- 1 Corinthians 11:1-10

Moving on: 

think and write as if every ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is an active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ; think and write as if every active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ engages in sodomy as popularly defined; think and write as if all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists who are out to destroy the Church and Western civilization; think and write as if all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs would automatically have sex with any other ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ (such that you think things like "two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs should never be left alone together because it'd be a near occasion of sin," etc., blah blah); think about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity only in terms of sɛҳuąƖ acts, forgetting about eros, the desire for communion with another, love and affection, and the complexity of human psychology;

It seems here that she is denouncing those who point out the ills of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle by playing to one's charity. 

think and write as if all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs would automatically have sex with any other ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ

This is not unreasonable, considering that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs go through an incredibly high amount of "partners" yearly than mere fornicators. Given the addictive nature of lust, it is reasonable to assume that those most engaged in acts of this kind repeatedly would be susceptible to do again if provided the opportunity. When I use the term ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, I am writing of those who embrace this sin, not those who suffer the attraction yet resist it. This is a distinction she fails to make. 

engages in sodomy as popularly defined

So acts of sodomy that are not as "popularly defined" as others are less evil? What does "popularly defined" here mean in this case? This kind of language reeks of Vatican II psuedocouncil speak.