Author Topic: Misogyny (Read 1526 times)

Carolus Magnus · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2007, 03:23:14 PM »

Other Forum?

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2007, 04:09:12 PM »

The ol' Foxtrot Echo, the ol' cod consumers...

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2007, 04:18:08 PM »

Christopher brings up a good point.

I must say that the issue of male/female roles in marriage is an interesting one, and a complex one.

It's one of those areas where almost no one is without some kind of "baggage" which tends to direct their behavior, or which they have to fight against, or both.

What I mean is, there are SO many errors out there, that it's hard to discern the truth -- that is, without some prayer and study :)

There are also many caricatures on both sides, and when the issue is discussed that's most of what you encounter -- "reductio ad absurdam" arguments on both sides. It's hard to follow the actual arguments, if there is any substance to the various arguments at all. I say that because most "arguments" degenerate into ad-hominem attacks and are often fraught with fallacies (I should translate that...'full of logical errors').

It's a topic I've given much thought too -- because I want to do the right thing in THIS area as well. I look around me and see the errors -- I see countless female-dominated couples, chaotic families, men who have abdicated their position of religious/financial/moral leadership, etc.

When it comes to practical application is where the doctrine becomes most complex.

One thing is for sure -- we can look to the lives of the Saints here for an answer, just like with every other issue. AND we can also say that any time married couples are portrayed on TV, assume there are errors to be found in their behavior/roles.

I've been off TV for some time now (more or less since 2000), and I'm finally starting to put things together in an objective fashion. The TV really poisons one's mind with its atheistic outlook on things. You have to have your "defenses up" the whole time you watch it.

In Christ,

Matthew

Miss_Fluffy · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2007, 05:17:54 PM »

I was discussing this very issue with a friend of mine today.

We recently watched the new James Bond movie; "Casino Royale" and we were discussing the difference in the way that James Bond relates to women in the more recent Bond movies.

It seems that in order for him to be a "good guy" he has to be submissive to the leading woman in the story. I'm not saying that his womanizing in past films is in any way ideal, but it is really strange how his character has changed to reflect the modern day ideal sex roles.

:tv-disturbed:I also see these new role definitions playing out with my married friends. The man is an overgrown child who watches sports and plays cards with his friends. The wife is the one keeping him in line, making sure he performs his bare minimum requirements to remain out of the doghouse.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** January 14, 2007, 05:34:41 PM »

How very true.

I am not surprised that such things are in movies of today -- after all, how did people GET their current role definitions? There's no other source that is as widespread, and proficient at promoting "popular culture" as TV and movies.

Though I don't have a TV now, I've watched plenty of movies in the past, and I've observed things like you describe. Basically, I can't switch off my brain and "enjoy" movies -- my thinking brain stays alive. So I tend to analyze them, as a specimen of pop culture, to help understand the modern world.

Even today, I catch a few bits and pieces of TV here and there at my mother-in-law's house. Things jump out at me ALL the time.

What you noted could very well be the "prime" or "notable content" of that movie --everything else is not worth mentioning.

I find it especially interesting to watch a 1960's version of a movie, and then a recent "remake" to see just HOW movies (and the world) have changed. James Bond is a good example.

Matthew

gilbertgea · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2007, 10:06:44 PM »

'What would be really helpful is if someone would discover if A.) the men dropped the ball; or B.) the women wrested it from their fingers.'

Excellently put. My opinion is that, in the end, it is the fault of men for having surrendered their power to women. However, the feminist movement was not created by women.

Feminism was an outgrowth of Marxism which was, itself, a philosophy of rebellion against the Divine Authority established by God, and therefore Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, to inclue the Pope. It was the latest weapon (in the late 19th century and early 20th century) in the War Against God, and it was an effective one: it set the sexes against each other, disrupting the harmonious relationship we previously enjoyed.

There is a pattern to all this, but few have 'deprogrammed' themselves sufficiently to observe it and accept it for what it is. However, even if more people understood the problem, few would truly make an effort to fix it.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2007, 10:20:18 PM »

The problem is this: when a man comes to understand what has happened, he will no longer be satisfied with less.

Unless he tries to delude himself, or make some kind of mental compromise, he will have made it MUCH HARDER to find a woman who isn't tainted, as he understands it.

Now it's true that the modern world has tainted MANY people, both men and women.
It's also true that ignorance ISN'T bliss -- because even a man who doesn't quite get it, and marries a women who is 10% or 20% feminist, will have the same problems in his marriage. (Back to what I'm always saying -- how ignorance doesn't remove the ill effects of a decision)

So to solve the problem, a man NEEDS to understand what has been done to women -- which makes him recognize it. The problem is, it can be lonely for such a guy, until he manages to find a women sufficiently untainted. He will be blissfully happy when he finds her -- but it can be quite a cross until then.

I can relate a bit, because I understand the modern world VERY well. A bit TOO well -- so much so, that I feel like an alien that has landed on this planet. I feel totally different from my in-laws, the people in my neighborhood, people at the store, etc. I understand the vanity of the world, and they don't. I am unable to enjoy frivolous, worldly pursuits -- they easily enjoy them (at least for a while, until they get sick of them, for material things never satisfy).

I think it's the same kind of thing.

I can say that I wouldn't trade my distaste for the world for anything -- because it's paired with a zest (relish, taste) for the truly beautiful -- Dogmas of the Faith, Chant, Our Lord, Our Lady, the Saints, etc.

In Christ,

Matthew

gilbertgea · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2007, 10:27:37 PM »

'The goal of all this is to make men impotent and usurp the order God ordained after the fall.'

No. The goal of all of this is to make the Catholic men of Western Civilisation impotent. The enemy's men dont put up with any feminist hogwash.

John Steven · « **Reply #9 on:** January 14, 2007, 10:49:43 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

The problem is this: when a man comes to understand what has happened, he will no longer be satisfied with less.

Unless he tries to delude himself, or make some kind of mental compromise, he will have made it MUCH HARDER to find a woman who isn't tainted, as he understands it.

Now it's true that the modern world has tainted MANY people, both men and women.
It's also true that ignorance ISN'T bliss -- because even a man who doesn't quite get it, and marries a women who is 10% or 20% feminist, will have the same problems in his marriage. (Back to what I'm always saying -- how ignorance doesn't remove the ill effects of a decision)

So to solve the problem, a man NEEDS to understand what has been done to women -- which makes him recognize it. The problem is, it can be lonely for such a guy, until he manages to find a women sufficiently untainted. He will be blissfully happy when he finds her -- but it can be quite a cross until then.

How true!

I am currently single and see little to be encouraged by at the moment, even among fellow "Traditional" Catholic girls. As I was saying in that other thread, all you really know is that they attend the Traditional Mass. Nothing else is a given. Feminism has made its way deep into the mindset of many of the "traditional" ladies as well.

Carolus Magnus · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2007, 06:13:42 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

What would be really helpful is if someone would discover if A.) the men dropped the ball; or B.) the women wrested it from their fingers.

It was a combination of the two, mens grip on the ball was weak which allowed women to take it easily from them. If the mens grip had been strong no one would have been able to take the ball, does that make sense?

In many ways man was happy to let the woman take the ball, a lot of men fear responsibilty you see and will quite happily let a woman act the mother in return for been freed of it.

Most common thing you'll here these men say when something goes wrong is "I didn't do anything it wasn't my fault." Inaction is now considered a virtue simply avoiding blame by doing nothing.

Carolus Magnus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2007, 06:22:26 AM »

Quote from: miserere

Greetings in Christ,

Over at the "other forum", I've seen recently a number of posts accusing certain traditional Catholic men of misogyny, to the point that one of these men had to be "deleted". Being unfamiliar with the term, I went to wikipedia (yes, the evil wikipedia) to see if I could find a good definition and some examples.

Of course you have that is because that forum is dominated by women.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2007, 07:46:15 AM »

A misogynist is not a man who hates women. A misogynist is a man that feminist women hate.

Pax tecuм.

CampeadorShin · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2007, 01:28:26 PM »

If you REALLY think about it, isn't feminism misogynistic?

It fools a woman into adopting lifestyles in opposition to her spiritual needs in the least. Not to mention some moral issues as well.

Miss_Fluffy · « **Reply #14 on:** January 15, 2007, 05:52:58 PM »

I think it's just a natural degradation of society that was always bound to happen as soon as man fell.

Eve's curse was that she would be subservient to men, and she wouldn't like it. We are just seeing a more degraded effect of that curse than there ever has been in the past. Simply because time does not erase the curse, but makes it's effects multiply.

As women grow more frustrated with their subservience to men, men become overzealous in putting women back in their place. Then women become even more frustrated.

I think what has happened has more to do with our modern-day economic constructs. Beginning during the age of Industrialization, men were suddenly taken away from their families. Work became something that took the husband away for many hours a day rather than a group family effort as in the case of something like farming, or a trade.

This absent-father situation made the woman with contempt for her subservient role very powerful in the family. I think it started with women indoctrinating their boy children with feminine traits such as "sensitivity". Now those boys are grown up and they serve their role as father and head of the household with this wimpy, whiny, feminine side that has been taught to them by their mothers.