I simply disagree with your assessment of the movie Bella.  Hope that doesn't make me a feminαzι.

Some of the rationale isn't based on logic, just sheer emotionalism and when you try to explain something there is no search for truth, but raw emotions.

Some is very generous of you. I think nearly all would explain things better.

Although, to give them some credit, it does take quite a bit of skill to argue a position you've reached emotionally in a manner which seems logical not only to yourself but to many others who are equally rooted in emotions.  :wink:

Not only is there women who support wearing pants but they wear them figuratively and literally. Some of the rationale isn't based on logic, just sheer emotionalism and when you try to explain something there is no search for truth, but raw emotions.

I think you've got that the wrong way round.

All the emotionalism has come from the anti-trousers brigade. And the logical arguments have come from the not anti-trousers brigade.

I went for about 5 years without wearing trousers, and I tried to convince myself that trousers were wrong. But the more arguments I read against the wearing of trousers, the more I could see what utter irrational, illogical, emotional rubbish those "arguments" were! And the arguments are not getting any better.

Do you realize that instead of speaking like experts you should be educated more thoroughly on subjects before speaking, and maybe have some background in dialectical logic, metaphysics, moral theology, exegetical theology, and scientific theology before you start making unfounded statements.

Are you saying women should be educated? How do you know what anyone's qualifications here are anyway? What are yours? I've been told by an SSPX priest that I'm a pretty good "theologian" actually. It's not a formal qualification of course! I'm very interested in moral theology, and I've often asked myself questions, reached conclusions, checked them with the priest, who has informed me I am right!

I can't critique you as individual mothers or women, but solely the mentality displayed here by some of the women which is scary at best.

And you think your mentality isn't scary? :scared2:

Clare.

Clare makes a good point.  The anti-pant, anti-TV, all movies are evil crowd surely is driven by emotions to a certain degree.  This very thread is driven by an emotional response.

Getting frustrated with a debate and pulling the feminαzι card is an interesting tactic.  

I think the main thing we're missing on this board is middle ground men.  There simply are no men on this board that fill in the same side of the spectrum as the rad-trad ideal.  If they were here, you'd probably call them brow-beaten by their feminαzι wives.

"The anti-pant, anti-TV, all movies are evil crowd surely is driven by emotions to a certain degree. This very thread is driven by an emotional response."

No.  It is driven by a logical recognition of that which is good and that which is not.  The emotionalism comes into play when people choose that which is not because of an emotional attachment to it.


"Getting frustrated with a debate and pulling the feminαzι card is an interesting tactic."

I'm not sure about the frustration level, but recognising feminist thought and expression is not a "tactic".


"I think the main thing we're missing on this board is middle ground men. There simply are no men on this board that fill in the same side of the spectrum as the rad-trad ideal. If they were here, you'd probably call them brow-beaten by their feminαzι wives."

"Middle-ground men" are conservatives: men who compromise with the new status quo (whatever that happens to be at the time) in the hopes that things wont get any worse.  They are already brow-beaten.

"Rad-trad" implies "radical" which itself is a label of the extreme left (using late 18th and 19th century political parlance).  If we are adopting that model, Traditionalists are more properly termed Reactionaries, i.e. those who want to go back to the way things were, or in other words, to return to our traditional Catholic Faith, along with its customs and courtesies.

"Only by being radicals of the right will Catholics have the dynamism to withstand the radicals of the left and to conquer the world for Christ." -Pope Pius XI

Hmm, interesting quote, especially from the Pope who banned Action francaise for being too 'reactionary' and issued a papal bull against fascism.  :confused1:
I don't remember where I read it, but I recall reading Absp. Lefebvre say something to the effect that Pope Pius XI was a good pope who was well-meaning and devoted to Christ, but perhaps too influenced by left-wing clergymen who wanted to stomp out any element of 'reaction' in the Church.
Edit: Sorry, the papal letter against fascism, Non abbiamo bisogno (1931), was an encyclical, not a bull.

Pinoy's quote is accurate by Pius XI. When adults complained about the dangers of Elvis and the Beatles they were dismissed as qwaks. Look around, they weren't so wrong.

When Padre Pio called the TV the box of the Devil he was considered an extremist, but look at who controls most of the programs on TV.

When someone (gilbert) points out the history of how pants entered society through Communist means, and when one can make an historical example of how the feminist movement forced the introduction of pants people think this is lunacy. When one points the scientific evidence to how it creates immodest glances I'm "refuted" by nothing but emotion without evidence.

It's sad that 100 years ago this wouldn't be a debate, but now we have partisans of things which have conclusive evidence of the harm they cause blaming the messengers of the same message given by wiser people in a wiser time.

Why are most of the women feminists here (with the exception of erin is nice who is HONEST enough to admit it) who claim to be traditional Catholics is beyond me. When did women who weren't educated in matters of moral theology, exegetical theology, and scientific theology become experts without evidence or proof and dictate to men how we should think? When was that a Catholic principle? I could see if you had some background, or at least cited doctors of the Church, but this sad proof-texting is pathetic.

Can you imagine quoting the Bible like "who is not against me is with me" as a pretext for defending something? Why not defend Martin Luther. Know what the Bible means before you quote it because Our Lord says clearly "Who who does not gather scatters."

Lastly, anyone who likes Bella doesn't or isn't a feminist as one could like it for pure enjoyment, but don't pawn it off as Catholic, and once explained why it isn't go off on someone without theological evidence and moral theology that verifies your claims.

You need to do more of  :reading: in order to do more of this  :argue: rationally from a Catholic perspective. Without realizing it you are doing more harm to the cause of the good of the Church without the docility to learn first, or be inquisitive about such a matter if you are not knowledgeable. Instead I'm hearing lay theologians with no evidence or knowledge explain why they are right and how we are crack-pots for not following your emotional positions.

I'm all for your contributions, but let's try them intelligently and for the good of the Church which requires docility to the truth, and a back-bone in traditional positions which can be from saints, the Magisterium, or history.