Sometimes, protestants don't leave behind their hatred of Catholicism, even when they take the trouble to go through RCIA and become Catholics after "dramatic conversion experiences".  It would have to be dramatic.

After taking a break from slumming in the sensus Catholicus, a professional bloggerette pauses to take account of her dating and mating struggles with what she calls, "sɛҳuąƖly wounded" or "sɛҳuąƖly troubled" young men.  She's essentially privileged enough to look down her nose at Catholicism like the preening byproduct of the Ivies she is.

I don't wonder how these mandarins of music [her Doctorate is in Music], presume to evaluate the mental well-being of young men they were dating, daring to use the appeal of clinical language to buttress their complaints about what is Catholicism and the culture which has surrounded it for millennia.  

She's just attempting in her critique to impose her fin de America  subculture on something she hasn't taken the trouble to understand, and is in any case, too busy reading Graham Greene and Walt Whitman to find out about it.

Another shemale enforcer of the consensus, an alleged convert to Catholicism making an appeal to authenticity.

Watch out boys.


http://pentiment.blogspot.com/2011/07/real-men.html

Real Men
When, after a lackadaisical childhood catechesis, years spent doing my own thing, and a dramatic conversion experience, I came back to the Catholic Church in 2002, I found that there was a New York City subculture I had never known existed: the subculture of young orthodox and Traditionalist Catholics.  Many of this subculture’s adherents were actively looking for a mate, and I dated a few of them, which was an experience unlike anything I was familiar with from my own long romantic struggles.

Many of the men in this subculture were what I can only call essentially wounded in their masculinity.  It was as if their self-identification as men had been haphazardly constructed out of subersive images of masculinity refracted to them from the culture; as if, finding certain norms of masculinity repellent (not without reason, it must be said), and not having had male role models to demonstrate for them any ontological qualities of manhood, these young men had skirted around the edges of male behavior, and had finished by taking affect for essence.  Their own masculinity seemed to have been forged in opposition and negation, cobbled together out of strong, oppositional attitudes to what repelled them culturally, rather than out of any positive attitudes, such as the wish to take on essential male roles -- engaging, for instance, in meaningful ways in the existential struggle to fight real enemies, and providing for and protecting the vulnerable, including women and children.  In addition, some of these men seemed to have self-consciously adopted certain styles, tastes, hobbies, and mannerisms associated with other times and places than twenty-first-century New York, identifying themselves more with, say, Europe before World War I, or fin-de-siècle Paris, or the New York of the Gilded Age.  One man from this set whom I dated asked me seriously once whether I considered myself American (he didn’t, in spite of the fact that, like me, he was).

I do not mean to suggest that these men were ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  As far as their actual sɛҳuąƖ problems and proclivities went, I did not get close enough to any of them to be able to speak with any authority.  However, I began to believe that the one I got closest to had a problem with pornography based on one or two little hints he let drop, and also on the fact that, after we’d decided to be “just friends” and I got engaged to someone else, he emailed me some disturbing soft-porn images of an Eastern European dominatrix whom, he said, I resembled.  This man was employed in a field related to Catholic apologetics, and I'm not saying that to be a successful, or even a sincere, apologist, one must be free of dark sɛҳuąƖ neuroses and addictions.  Only God knows what is in the hearts of any of us, including, as we have seen lately in the case of the disgraced Fr. Corapi, in the heart of the priest who is saying Mass, and in the hearts of those who appear to be the most holy.  Only God knows what snares they must outrun each and every day of their lives in order to escape falling into the hells that are peculiarly painful and horrible and familiar just to them.  But I am saying that the combination of qualities that I saw in this man -- a shrinking from true, essential masculinity, a way of being a man that in fact seemed gerry-built upon opposition to cultural standards of masculinity, a self-professed orthodox Catholicism veering towards Traditionalism, and some deep-seated sɛҳuąƖ problems -- struck me as disturbingly emblematic of a certain kind of orthodox Catholic man.

In other parts of  what someone has called "Catholic Blogistan,"  the “sola skirtura” debate rages on.  This debate couldn’t be more preposterous, or a less compelling use of mental energy, to me personally, but my background is different from that of most of the people who frequent these particular Catholic areas of the interwebs. For some of the skirts-only enthusiasts, it's ostensibly a question of femininity.  For others, it's a question of women in pants committing some kind of sin against God and man by allowing the outline of their lower body to be seen, rather than inferred.  While these arguments are not interesting to me, however, the evidently torrid atmosphere from which they arise is.  I can't help but thinking that men who get hot and bothered about whether women wear pants are coming from a place that I can only call sɛҳuąƖly troubled, and it reminds me of the sɛҳuąƖ woundedness I encountered in the men of the orthodox Catholic subculture into which I ventured after my reversion.

I do not mean to suggest that I am not sɛҳuąƖly wounded myself.  I am.  And, as I mentioned earlier, neither am I suggesting that sɛҳuąƖly-wounded men cannot be effective apologists.  They can.  It is when they write or speak out of a poorly-hidden crisis in their own masculinity, which I believe is a refelction of a cultural crisis of essential masculinity, that I get worried for women.  Some orthodox Catholic men, on the one hand, appear to be trying to regain an impossible Edenic ideal of manhood and fatherhood that they may never have seen or experienced in their own lives.  Others, though perhaps unconsciously, appear to do everything possible to avoid the self-sacrifice called for in marriage and fatherhood by attempting to disassociate themselves from any accepted cultural norms of masculinity, and, in so doing, fail to present themselves to eligible women as viable potential husbands and fathers.

The same man who sent me the dominatrix pictures before my marriage confided in me his great fear -- a phobia, really -- of one day having a child with Down syndrome.  His revulsion for children with Down syndrome was so unusual that I wondered if it was, like his apparent attraction to S&M pornography, another part of his wounded masculinity, as if being unable to love the obviously disabled were somehow connected to preferring exaggerated images of unbalanced sɛҳuąƖ power to the vulnerability (and, one could say, the shame) of a sɛҳuąƖ relationship between normal, fallen, imperfect, broken husbands and wives.  (It has occurred to me that, as much as I may or may not resemble an Eastern European dominatrix, he would have been  terribly disappointed and unhappy being married to me.  And if we had been married, and had happened to have disabled children, as I do with the man whom I did marry, I doubt he would have stuck around too long).

I have no answers to the problems of wounded masculinity and femininity in the Church.  We are all essentially broken, after all.  Nonetheless, when one of us is wounded in this fundamental way, and acts out of his woundedness, and does damage to others as a result of it, the entire Mystical Body of Christ suffers.  I hope and pray that priests and laypeople may work together to heal the wounded -- i.e., our brothers and sisters and ourselves -- which I think would go a long way towards healing relationships between Catholic men and women.

Of course the woman gives us the "we're all broken" line - but where is the acceptance of any culpability on the part of women?  It's insincere to say "we're all broken" and then use the pants/skirts argument as an attempt to suggest the men who argue it are nearly invariably "sɛҳuąƖly wounded."  What infuriates men who try to have discussions with trad/feminist women (trad women raised in a society where feminist attitudes are deeply entrenched) is that they resort to the same cultural marxist style of "criticism" that is an essential tool of subversion - they attack the man.  She says the arguments about pants don't interest her.  Except of course, as an excuse to excoriate traditional Catholic men.  Say that skirts are more feminine than pants?  This intuitively obvious statement becomes for this woman a pretext for attack.  There is no interest in discussing the topic - indeed, for those of us men who've gotten caught up in these arguments - which do tend to the ridiculous - what is infuriating is the fundamentally broken reasoning skills of women.  She's not interested in the arguments.  She's interested in understanding how the argument somehow proves that the "authoritarian personality" is damaged.  I don't doubt that the average traditionalist is lucky to escape damage - we live in a society where devoutly religious people have become pariahs.  Where a man with traditional views of courtship can't find a woman he can court according to the norms of his religion.  A situation where the vast majority of women have an alien system of values, and where there are obstacles that can easily be put in place to courtship in cliquish little chapels.  And worst of all - where ostensibly traditionalist groups are full of women who have become imbued with feminist ways of thinking.

Do most women's blue jeans and pants flaunt the feminine anatomy in a manner that would offend against the morals articulated in manuals of moral theology?  Without a doubt, in most cases.  Are skirts more appropriate for church, and more feminine than pants?  Without a doubt.  Is the change in woman's fashions directly related to the decline of Christian civilization?  Without a doubt.

But these obvious, common sense points are too much for many women to bear.  The simple fact is that these men whose masculinity she derides are denied public respect because they are traditional Catholics and because they reject modern culture.  And that's a bridge too far for a trad woman who wants the acceptance of the world and society - something that is far easier for a trad woman to have than a trad man who starts talking about Jєωs (you just can't say that, how can you? - you must be damaged somehow to talk about the Jєωιѕн power being opposed to Christianity!)

Can't we see how this really works?  Traditional Catholic men face the rejection of the wider society - this invariably has negative effects on all but the most saintly and strongest characters.

And it's ridiculous to say that the argument about skirts is "apologetics."  This isn't about saintliness.  It's about common sense.  And the lack of common sense that you encounter in women when certain boundaries set by this society are crossed.

as if, finding certain norms of masculinity repellent (not without reason, it must be said), and not having had male role models to demonstrate for them any ontological qualities of manhood, these young men had skirted around the edges of male behavior, and had finished by taking affect for essence.  Their own masculinity seemed to have been forged in opposition and negation, cobbled together out of strong, oppositional attitudes to what repelled them culturally, rather than out of any positive attitudes, such as the wish to take on essential male roles -- engaging, for instance, in meaningful ways in the existential struggle to fight real enemies, and providing for and protecting the vulnerable, including women and children.  

This line is really contentless.  Yes you don't need trad men to "protect women and children" - you have the feminist dominated police state, don't you?

What kind of country is feminist dominated America?  (the following is a true ongoing story)

You know, the kind of state where a man whose wife commits adultery and leaves him manages to sue for child support while the husband is taking care of the children, (sued for child support a cuckold child no less!) - while the young matron is taking meth.  The poor man takes his children away, and the hard line of the authorities is to dispatch skin-headed police in body armor carrying M4 rifles to pursue him.  Then suddenly - the mother is afraid they might shoot the father in front of his daughters - not that he might die - but that they might be "traumatized" - but of course the feminist police state invariably takes the "hard line" of punitive harshness - it has absolutely NO interest in the welfare of children - it has absolutely the #1 interest in destroying the rights of husbands and fathers.

That, you obnoxious woman - is a REAL ENEMY - but you're too obsessed with men might be looking at racy pictures, affecting some sort of historical mannerism and dress - and failing to adhere to appreciate the "masculine" aura of cops with shaved heads dressed liked storm troopers to pursue a father trying to protect his daughters from a psychopathically anti-male legal system.

You're too concerned that they don't know how to seduce you while simultaneously adhering to Catholic morality - so you're not concerned with those of them who are trying to expose this beastly society to the criticism it deserves. You question their manhood - but what I question is the willingness of most Catholic women to actually commit to Catholic motherhood and show respect for a believing Catholic husband.

THE REAL ENEMY (mostly men is he judges who are black robed devils with the state trooper as their evil bald headed minions. THE REAL ENEMY. The feminist guilty yes, but basically just along for the ride.

sheep

I messed up that last sentence. It should read like this;

THE REAL ENEMY are the black robed devils (judges) and their bald headed minions (state troopers); mostly men. The feminist guilty and big time enablers yes, but basically just along for the ride.

sheep

Many of the men in this subculture were what I can only call essentially wounded in their masculinity.  It was as if their self-identification as men had been haphazardly constructed out of subersive images of masculinity refracted to them from the culture; as if, finding certain norms of masculinity repellent (not without reason, it must be said), and not having had male role models to demonstrate for them any ontological qualities of manhood, these young men had skirted around the edges of male behavior, and had finished by taking affect for essence.

 But I am saying that the combination of qualities that I saw in this man -- a shrinking from true, essential masculinity, a way of being a man that in fact seemed gerry-built upon opposition to cultural standards of masculinity, a self-professed orthodox Catholicism veering towards Traditionalism, and some deep-seated sɛҳuąƖ problems -- struck me as disturbingly emblematic of a certain kind of orthodox Catholic man.

Is it possible to contradict yourself while making no sense?  What a silly question -- Ratzinger does it all the time.

But take a gander at the two sections that I put in italics.  In one paragraph, she says that traditional Catholic men pattern their masculinity after "subversive" images from the culture.  Then right beneath, she says that their masculinity is actually a REBELLION against the culture, and she complains about that too.  

Which is it?  Considering they're Catholic, I'd say their image of masculinity is along the order of, I don't know, Jesus Christ?  St. Joseph?  Names that are striking mostly by their absence from this Catholic essay!

Nowhere, of course, does she give an example of what cultural images these wounded men supposedly pattern themselves after.  I have a vague impression that she's talking about movie stars or athletes; Steve McQueen or something.
But whatever she's trying to say, I haven't really seen a lot of trad Catholics who take cues from popular culture in terms of how they behave as men.  Except on Fisheaters.

Perhaps sensing this, but unable to admit she was wrong, she simply changes her mind mid-stream.  No one can criticize you if you represent every single point of view within the same essay!  Now, according to her, trad Catholic men are reacting crudely against the culture, not patterning themselves on it.  They are only Catholic because they like the feeling of being contrary, of being rebels.   They have a "Weltanschauung built on negation," as a pseudo-intellectual might say.  

But again, nowhere do we learn even a shadow of a shred of a crumb about what might constitute "true, essential masculinity."  That is because "true, essential masculinity" for her is kind of like "the hottest woman ever" for pagan males, an ideal she will never capture and one that is based entirely on her own all-too-prejudiced perception.  

Though she doesn't say much that is outright feminist in this essay, apart from the pants thing, it is her attitude that gives it away -- and here we should define a feminist ATTITUDE rather than feminist IDEAS.  The feminist attitude is one of constant dissatisfaction and searching, of a lack of openness to the will of God that reveals itself through a whole jury-rigged philosophical outlook that is Catholic-flavored rather than Catholic.   Of course, feminism is just a form of pride tailored to women, and you don't have to be a feminist to be a proud female... Pride, in any form, blinds you and makes you talk a lot of rot.

Maybe I shouldn't expect much from a bunch of part-time Catholics and crypto-Feminists, but what is particularly painful is the amount of BS with respect to false accusations which strongly resemble the attacks leveled by Protestant and Marxist ideologues against Catholics: that they're allegedly incapable of being sensible and efficient in their jobs or decent bread winners.  Sounds too calculated to me.

It's not hard enough trying to live a different kind of life, but then the people who claim they are your co-religionists like to spread lies about you, like the probable Reds they are.

How often have we heard the term, "mentally imbalanced"?

I've grown immune to it over the years.  You just can't let these types get you down.

You don't have to be a pushy feminist to embrace feminism in your thinking and daily life. One detects so much of it among conservatives of various kinds as they seek that ideal medium between respect for an established culture and acquiring a false sense of worldly expectation brought about by too much institutionalised education and positioning oneself on a treadmill of success. In most cases, this is a hopeless compromise because the world wins out in the end at the expense of any residual conservatism that is more cultural than deeply ingrained.

The ideal man for this lady will not be found among the ranks of reactionary orthodox Christians because they will always smother her acquired sense of worldy expectation. Her thinking has always to be sweet and positive even if it is faulty and hardly chimes with the unavoidable negativity she will find with men at odds with the world. A more successful combination and this seems quite common among traditionalists is where the lady is happy for the man to be "doing his own thing" while she engages in some religious diversion. An active Christian male in her life would be a bridge too far as it would highlight those contradictions that women seem able to accommodate today.

Someone is compulsively downrating these posts.

Good job by all on this thread. Bump!