Author Topic: The Feminizing of Men (Read 2360 times)

bowler · « **on:** October 01, 2013, 08:54:31 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Fairly typical voice for a modern young man.

TKV is correct here, and I think that's what the discussion should be about, modern young men are considerably more feminized in speech than men of earlier generations.

It's less a matter of vocal pitch than it is of inflection. William Randolph Hearst had a high-pitched voice, but there was nothing really effeminate about it, because men spoke with a masculine cadence in those days - firm, straightforward and declarative. Many young men today speak with feminized inflection - indirect, questioning, excessive use of qualifiers, rising terminals in declarative sentences, etc.

I don't buy the "hormonal" theories - hormones don't affect cadence and inflection. This is a subject worth talking about because we should be instilling masculine traits in young Catholic men - including speech and mannerism.

And for what it's worth, "effeminate" is probably the wrong word, because it suggests that the person speaking is a practitioner of that particular vice. "Feminized" seems the more accurate choice.

No one today but the big flamers is more effeminate than the French nobility (the rich) were like in the what, 1300's to 1850's? Sounds like men in prosperous countries are going that way now? It was used as a sign of culture, education, and refinement. I think many French priests use it that way today.

Personally, I think it is a mortal sin to act that way, the sin of bad example for youths.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2013, 09:30:21 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: TheKnightVigilant
Fairly typical voice for a modern young man.

TKV is correct here, and I think that's what the discussion should be about, modern young men are considerably more feminized in speech than men of earlier generations.

It's less a matter of vocal pitch than it is of inflection. William Randolph Hearst had a high-pitched voice, but there was nothing really effeminate about it, because men spoke with a masculine cadence in those days - firm, straightforward and declarative. Many young men today speak with feminized inflection - indirect, questioning, excessive use of qualifiers, rising terminals in declarative sentences, etc.

I don't buy the "hormonal" theories - hormones don't affect cadence and inflection. This is a subject worth talking about because we should be instilling masculine traits in young Catholic men - including speech and mannerism.

And for what it's worth, "effeminate" is probably the wrong word, because it suggests that the person speaking is a practitioner of that particular vice. "Feminized" seems the more accurate choice.

No one today but the big flamers is more effeminate than the French nobility (the rich) were like in the what, 1300's to 1850's? Sounds like men in prosperous countries are going that way now? It was used as a sign of culture, education, and refinement. I think many French priests use it that way today.

Personally, I think it is a mortal sin to act that way, the sin of bad example for youths.

Just admit it -- it would be a sin for YOU to act that way, maybe. It would be affected, on purpose, and your mind would certainly offer you another "template" of what a man should act like (in contrast with your behavior), which you'd be consciously not following.

Many people are stuck in the subjective -- they can't see past the end of their nose. Your post is a textbook case.

Do you really think that S.H. is just another Bowler walking around, maybe a couple decades younger and with Asian features? But containing EVERY formation, thought, and essence that you are accustomed to having between your two ears? With the same personality, upbringing, past life as you, etc.?

You can see how ridiculous that is.

I seriously doubt that the man in question is giving ANY thought to how he talks. I'm quite sure he's just being himself -- not consciously emulating ANYONE in particular.

Where there's no thought, there's no sin.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2013, 09:42:51 AM »

To illustrate just how SUBJECTIVE a given person's view of true manhood is,

Bowler here is of the belief that "men don't sing".

He is vehemently (is there a stronger word?) against the Dialogue Mass. He's one of those older guys that likes to sit there in quiet with his hand-missal and follow the Mass with no "distractions" including sung Gregorian Chant or people making responses.

I, on the other hand, sing all the time. Due to circuмstances beyond our control, we have been going to the 7:30 Mass rather than the 10:00 one. 7:30 is not only a Low Mass every week, but they don't even sing a recessional/processional! I really miss it. I miss the singing. In my little world, real men DO sing. They learn how, master it, memorize songs, and sing them well.

But my culture and upbringing is not the same as Bowler's. At least I'm aware of that.

bowler · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:24:01 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Many people are stuck in the subjective -- they can't see past the end of their nose. Your post is a textbook case.

Do you really think that S.H. is just another Bowler walking around, maybe a couple decades younger and with Asian features?

I purposely started a new thread to discuss the matter of the feminizing men, and ELIMINATE any discussion of this S.H. person. You just screwed the whole reason for this thread. I don't know anything about an S.H., and neither would anyone who opened this thread for the first time. Might as well pack my bags and go home, this thread is now garbage.

bowler · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:29:01 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

To illustrate just how SUBJECTIVE a given person's view of true manhood is,

Bowler here is of the belief that "men don't sing".(strawman)
He is vehemently (is there a stronger word?) against the Dialogue Mass. He's one of those older guys that likes to sit there in quiet with his hand-missal and follow the Mass with no "distractions" including sung Gregorian Chant or people making responses.(strawman)

But my culture and upbringing is not the same as Bowler's. At least I'm aware of that.(strawman. You don't know my culture. Moreover, my culture sings and dances more than likely any culture, and is identified as such by the entire world)

Total strawman.

stgobnait · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:38:03 AM »

Im with bowler on this... i can appreciate a sung Mass ( well sung) but i like to know beforehand, that is what i will be attending, my preference would be for a low Mass, with no distractions.

bowler · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:38:53 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: bowler

No one today but the big flamers are more effeminate than the French nobility (the rich) were like in the what, 1300's to 1850's? Sounds like today men in prosperous countries are going in that direction? It was used as a sign of culture, education, and refinement. I think many French priests use it that way today.

Personally, I think it is a mortal sin to act that way, the sin of bad example for youths.

Just admit it -- it would be a sin for YOU to act that way, maybe. It would be affected, on purpose, and your mind would certainly offer you another "template" of what a man should act like (in contrast with your behavior), which you'd be consciously not following.

Now that I've cut out the static, you can see what this thread is about.

I am saying that I think it is a sin to act like the old French nobility that you see in movies. I think it is a bad example, if it is done purposely to look refined.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:46:42 AM »

Quote from: stgobnait

Im with bowler on this... i can appreciate a sung Mass ( well sung) but i like to know beforehand, that is what i will be attending, my preference would be for a low Mass, with no distractions.

His comment was a strawman. What I had said, there's a whole thread or two or three on the subject, was that I was against the Dialogue Mass replacing the Low Mass. THAT IS what the dialogue mass was intended to do, and IS the direction the SSPX is going. There will be no Low Mass, just 100% vocally participating masses, Dialogue and High Mass, everyone speaking outloud all the responses.

But that is another subject, and has nothing to do with this thread.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:54:37 AM »

"In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made." - CSUN debate page

Cantarella · « **Reply #9 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:55:08 AM »

Quote from: stgobnait

Im with bowler on this... i can appreciate a sung Mass ( well sung) but i like to know beforehand, that is what i will be attending, my preference would be for a low Mass, with no distractions.

This thread reminded me of this propaganda made by the schismatic Orthodox.

The Old Roman Chant / Byzantine does sound more masculine to me than Gregorian.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #10 on:** October 01, 2013, 11:18:13 AM »

Yes, I agree. Scripture says that the effeminate (men) will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I live in an extreme liberal society. I look around and a lot of what I see is anti-male. Theres a lot of people who are against war. Many people around here are cultural marxists. Women's rights is rampant here. Rights in general I should say. The list goes on.

First off, men need war. This is apart of being a man. Men need other things too like hunting, adventuring, etc. But its like our society, and particularly this one, wants to take those things away from us. Obviously they would be taking away hunting if they took away our guns.

Secondly, marxism severely closes the gender gap. Women begin to take up the roles of men in society, and become more manlike in the process. Men become more feminine also. Gender identity dissipates. I believe that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity starts to spring up too.

Some people blame religion for this. I think that is going too far, but at the same time I can kinda see why. Many of you here on this website have talked about how much they get rebuked by other Catholics. I can see rebuking people as a good thing, but at the same time, I think some people use that as a control mechanism. Furthermore, a power trip. If you sit there and correct, correct, and humiliate too much then you are really stripping the person down, and it could effect his manhood. This is not good.

Government is another institution to blame. I don't necessarily blame the Church, but government is certainly one I do blame. It established our economy (and its becoming more socialist/marxist). It gives rights to the wrong people. I personally think this is the one to blame more than anything.

It is becoming harder to be a man these days. We are certainly headed down the wrong road.

Timothy · « **Reply #11 on:** October 01, 2013, 11:44:57 AM »

Low Mass is an aberration, and particularly should be avoided on Sundays and other Holydays if possible. Solemn High Mass is technically, and should be in reality, the norm on Sundays and Holydays at least, and all the time when possible.

Quote from: [i

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass[/i] by Fr. Nicholas Gihr]The Church not only offers the Sacrifice, but she moreover unites with its offering various prayers and ceremonies. The sacrificial rites are carried out in the name of the Church and, therefore, powerfully move God to impart His favors and extend His bounty to the living and the dead. By reason of the variety of the formulas of the Mass, the impetratory efficacy of the Sacrifice can be increased… also the nature of the prayers of the Mass and even of its whole rite exerts accordingly an influence upon the measure and nature of the fruits of the Sacrifice. From what has been said there follow several interesting consequences. Among others, that, on the part of the Church, a High Mass solemnly celebrated has greater value and efficacy than merely a low Mass. (…) At a Solemn High Mass the external display is richer and more brilliant than at a low Mass; for at a solemn celebration the Church, in order to elevate the dignity of the Sacrifice, manifests greater pomp, and God is more glorified thereby. (…) This grander and more solemn celebration of the Sacrifice is more acceptable to God and, therefore, more calculated to prevail upon Him to grant us, in His mercy, the favors we implore; - that is, to impart greater efficacy to the petitions and supplications of the Church.

Timothy · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2013, 11:46:22 AM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

First off, men need war.

Absolutely ridiculous, and quite contrary to Church teaching. But then again, so is much of what you say.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2013, 12:11:16 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Yes, I agree. Scripture says that the effeminate (men) will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I live in an extreme liberal society. I look around and a lot of what I see is anti-male. Theres a lot of people who are against war. Many people around here are cultural marxists. Women's rights is rampant here. Rights in general I should say. The list goes on.

Aye. Effeminate behavior is a vice. Thomas Aquinas thought so, anyway.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:37:38 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Yes, I agree. Scripture says that the effeminate (men) will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I live in an extreme liberal society. I look around and a lot of what I see is anti-male. Theres a lot of people who are against war. Many people around here are cultural marxists. Women's rights is rampant here. Rights in general I should say. The list goes on.

Aye. Effeminate behavior is a vice. Thomas Aquinas thought so, anyway.

[1 Corinthians 6:9-11] 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I took this from the New American Standard translation. I am not sure, but I thought this was a Catholic translation.

I also believe that men can overcome such a thing.