I’m a cradle Catholic, a traditionalist; I only attended the Novus Ordo for like one year in the 90’s.

The other day I ran into an elderly lady at a Novus Ordo church non-mass function, I had not seen her in 35 years ago, when she was my neighbor. To cut to the chase, she said that she runs the church (a big church, holds 800 people) and that she was going to cut the heads off some priest who did not attend the function. She went on and on about how she runs the show. I knew her well, I know she is not exaggerating. She is truly an alpha female of the worst order.

This lady could be my mother, so I did not say anything and let her talk (I am a leader of men, and I marvel at how men can allow themselves to be domineered by the physically weaker sex). It was all very eye opening to one who is not accustomed to seeing women even lead a Rosary. Our conversation brought back the memory of my short stint in the Novus Ordo, which I attended for less than one year before I found tradition. I remember that the women ran everything, and during the weekday masses scarcely were any men seen other than the priests, which seemed to only have the function of performing the mass. I also remember how very few men even went to mass. I remembered how friends who traveled to Europe told me that they were the only man at mass during the week, that it was only old women. It dawned on me that this alpha female elderly lady was the icon of the New Catholic Church administrators on the ground. It dawned on me that it is these ladies that run the show on the ground, not the Bishops, not the pastors, not the priests.

I think it was on Rorate Coeli that I read that 98% of French Catholics do not go to mass. That is the same as saying that nobody goes to mass in France.  In the USA, the statistics say that 25% of Catholics go to mass at least once a month. It appears to me though, that it is principally the men that have left the Church. From my own point of view, before I knew what I was doing, the first thing that kept me from going to mass was the effeminacy and irrelevancy of the whole affair. The priests were not the type of men that men respect and admire. First, their appearance, they were not masculine men, not good examples for young boys (and men) to look up to. Secondly, their sermons were about nothing, not wanting to offend anyone, they were left pretty much with talking about subjects like the weather.

Now, I ask, why would a man go to listen to basically an un-masculine waster of one’s time? The priests have nothing to offer the men and the place is run by feelings oriented alpha females. Why would a man want to go there? Imagine having to visit a house that is run by an alpha female and have to endure it every day or once a week? From my point of view, this is what has chased away all the men from going to mass, what has killed the Novus Ordo church (99+% of the Church)

Remembering my conversation with this alpha female elderly lady “who runs this church” and pondering upon I Corinthians 14:34, I wonder if this lady and all like her that run the show are punishment upon the clergy today, the Pope/Bishops/Priests? They did not do God’s work, and so they were given up to be run my women?

May our men stand up and take the lead so that women like this cannot.

When you look at our men today they are indeed effeminate and possibly closet ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. A real man controls his women. One can even say that at least Islam has a better job at stopping this onslaught of feminism (there is no feminism in the Arab world ha) than we men here in the West, which is why we are an endangered species.

This is wrong. There's a great deal of difference between the Christian view of women and the Muslim view. In Christianity, women are of equal dignity insofar as they too have immortal souls capable of great sanctity (see: the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the female saints), it's just that they have a submissive / modest role by nature and they ought to fulfil that. The Muslim view is that practically women do not have souls.

Your view, "a real man controls his women", is unchristian, it's pagan. The Christian view is that a man should not have to tell a woman what to do because she should submit herself according to humility, and really it's a shame for a man to have to tell a woman to do it in the first place, and that if he has to it's only for her own good/happiness, and not to lord it over her and humiliate her for the sake of it. In Christianity men and women are able to be friends. In the pagan world and in the muslim world friendship between men and women is rare. Often wives are treated as little more than slaves.

The Muslim view of women is probably worse than the modern liberal view. They are both against nature, but the modern liberal view is really a corruption of the liberty that Christianity gave to women, whereas the Muslim view reduces women almost to the level of beasts.

Men that talk about women needing to be whipped are probably emasculated men to begin with. Look at Nietzsche for example, he was emasculated and he said that about women needing to be whipped. And those Muslim men that murder their wives or daughters that commit adultery or fornication - it's not just a sense of justice that they do it out of, it's emasculation. In a way Muslim men are afraid of women. They cover them up but in a strange way they are also highly eroticised. In Islam, if a man and a woman commit fornication it's entirely the woman's fault; women are seen as temptresses to the point that a man cannot be blamed for giving into temptation.

This is wrong. There's a great deal of difference between the Christian view of women and the Muslim view. In Christianity, women are of equal dignity insofar as they too have immortal souls capable of great sanctity (see: the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the female saints), it's just that they have a submissive / modest role by nature and they ought to fulfil that. The Muslim view is that practically women do not have souls.

Your view, "a real man controls his women", is unchristian, it's pagan. The Christian view is that a man should not have to tell a woman what to do because she should submit herself according to humility, and really it's a shame for a man to have to tell a woman to do it in the first place, and that if he has to it's only for her own good/happiness, and not to lord it over her and humiliate her for the sake of it. In Christianity men and women are able to be friends. In the pagan world and in the muslim world friendship between men and women is rare. Often wives are treated as little more than slaves.

The Muslim view of women is probably worse than the modern liberal view. They are both against nature, but the modern liberal view is really a corruption of the liberty that Christianity gave to women, whereas the Muslim view reduces women almost to the level of beasts.

Men that talk about women needing to be whipped are probably emasculated men to begin with. Look at Nietzsche for example, he was emasculated and he said that about women needing to be whipped. And those Muslim men that murder their wives or daughters that commit adultery or fornication - it's not just a sense of justice that they do it out of, it's emasculation. In a way Muslim men are afraid of women. They cover them up but in a strange way they are also highly eroticised. In Islam, if a man and a woman commit fornication it's entirely the woman's fault; women are seen as temptresses to the point that a man cannot be blamed for giving into temptation.

The modern view of women is much worse than the Muslim view, which lets women run around as whores and have sex with any man under the tent. Women are inferior to men and CANNOT do things men can. Now that being said I do not think women should be slaves (uh Muslim women cannot be slaves either since no Muslim can be a slave, unless you're using the feminist view of marriage being slavery) but women should be completely shunned from all manners of careers (and when they do get pregnant in an ideal world they would quit their job to raise more children).

The modern view of women is much worse than the Muslim view, which lets women run around as whores and have sex with any man under the tent.

There's only a certain sect of radical feminists who promote whoredom as good-in-itself. Most moderns just think that women should have the right to have sex with whom they want and not feel guilty about it. Of course I disagree with this, because fornication is a grave sin, offends God, defiles the soul, lowers the dignity of the human being, spreads disorder in society, etc. However, this ill-conceived and disastrous liberty is nearer to the truth than the Muslim view. Christ came to set us free. The liberals also believe that they are setting people free (at least the well-intentioned among them), they are just ignorant and tragically mistaken. That view which would subject women to the extent that they are not recognised as human beings is very far from the truth. Christ Himself said that Moses only allowed polygamy because of the hardness of the Jєωs hearts.

 

Women are inferior to men

Try telling that to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
In Christ we are equal :

There is neither Jєω nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 The inferiority of women is really a practical issue. It's just that they are physically weaker and more volatile in their emotions, so they are better suited to more passive roles in society. It's not that women are inferior in themselves. If we get to heaven we will be kneeling before the Blessed Virgin Mary. We won't be served by 72 virgins.

Christ Himself said that Moses only allowed polygamy because of the hardness of the Jєωs hearts.

The Old Testamant is still God's Word is it not? That makes polygamy more natural than ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, since the Patriarchs all practiced it.

Women are inferior to men

In the real world we are not equal. Women are weaker than men, are more emotional and foolhardy, more temptuous than men, etc.

The inferiority of women is really a practical issue. It's just that they are physically weaker and more volatile in their emotions, so they are better suited to more passive roles in society. It's not that women are inferior in themselves. If we get to heaven we will be kneeling before the Blessed Virgin Mary. We won't be served by 72 virgins.

I find it funny that you quote St. Paul since he also lambasts a church for allowing a whore to become the spirutal leader of it and says that wives should submit to their husbands as if they are submitting to Christ.

I find it funny that you quote St. Paul since he also lambasts a church for allowing a whore to become the spirutal leader of it and says that wives should submit to their husbands as if they are submitting to Christ.

Yes, but the difference is that a Christian wife in submitting does so out of grace, as you say, as if she was submitting to Christ. That's a lot different than your husband lording it over you and you being forced to submit. That's a brutal relationship based on fear rather than love.

It sounds to me like you are scandalised by the promiscuity of women today, and that has born in you a desire to see them subjugated and whipped. I know, because I have felt the same way myself. IMO this is a temptation, it breeds contempt and a hypocritical fixation on the sins of others. We should focus more on the purity of the saints than on the filthiness of irreligious women. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think these dissolute women are happy, and they certainly won't be when they get to hell. We should have pity on them like Our Lord had pity on the woman caught in adultery.