Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: cantatedomino

Columba, men have cornered the market on abuse of power.

Barbara, that's another irrational statement.

My name is not Barbara. Where did you get that?

?

From the list of names.  I assumed it was you.  Your last name starts with a B?

Quote

The problem modernity presents is that there are almost no virgins left. Almost all women are whores.

There is nothing in between?

Excellent question and precisely the problem with this conference!

This conference failed to address penitent women who must pay for their sins, try to reclaim what's left of the shards of their femininity, figure out what happened to them, deal with the loss of so much goodness in their lives, and yet still serve Christ with charity, generosity, and zeal.    

I'm waiting for the good +W to speak to them with love, warmth, charity, and compassion. I'm waiting for him to give them a conference on how to strengthen their hope and rebuild their lives.  

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: cantatedomino

You are incorrect.

Man is the principle of woman. We can thank men for all the heresies and all the errors and all the deformations plaguing the world.

There's nothing more disgusting than a denatured woman, but she is an effect, not a cause.

No, women are capable of thought and agency.

Incidentally, you can confirm for the people here that I'm not mean in person.  You told me something to that effect at the conference.

Yes, women are capable of thought and agency.

Yes, you are a pleasant person and I liked you very much.

Yes, you are the one who "liked" this post!  

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: parentsfortruth

One key thing you're leaving out is that Bishop Williamson said that there were exceptions, that should not be mentioned because "we want to establish the RULE." Sure, there were exceptions, and I would say that they were RELIGIOUS that -were- those exceptions.

I think he went overboard and failed to balance out his conference with examples from reality.

Oh, please, Cantate.  Régine Pernoud writes some good and interesting things, but she was a liberal who believed in human rights.  She was a feminist who thought that the socialist version of feminism was too extreme but that there was a legitimate type of pro-femininity feminism (this is the same line that the "conservative" Novus Ordites use today).  She was not a Traditional Catholic.  She clearly exaggerates the difference between the supposedly more feminist and egalitarian social attitudes of the Middle Ages versus the classical (read pagan) attitudes she decries.  I have read and appreciated Régine Pernoud and am no friend of the Renaissance (to put it mildly), but we need to be far more discriminating in our analysis of the word of a woman who is an historian.  We can start with her criticisms of the Roman paterfamilias and patriarchy, her apparent applauding of women being in authority over men (even in matters of religion !), and her general aversion to Roman law (much of which is the basis for Canon Law).  I had to stop reading "Those Terrible Middle Ages!" by her because of its unsubtle feminist and liberal propaganda packaged into characteristically womanish faux-scholarship and poor inferences.

Hi Pere,

I did not proffer that author. Nemmo did. But I'm quite sure that the book contains some truth, and I agree with Nemmo's criticism. My reference to reality hearkens back to experiential knowledge. The conference did not sit well with my 51 years of living, moving, and having being.

I think the scenario you describe here is very far down the chain of consequential effects. It's the level of barbarism to which we have now sunk.

If by "barbarism" you mean a lack of urbane manners, the replacement of physical representations of reality with symbolic and nominal ones, and the removal of man from the hardness and rhythms of nature, then we need more of it.  More hardness is necessary for the restoration of the just peace of Our Lord's laws and Catholic culture.

In the end, however, it is men who have devised this system, which is a stratagem of deadly warfare against Christian civilization.

This whole line of inquiry seems to be completely flawed.  Of course men devised the evil system.  Men devise all systems, good or evil.  Women do not devise complex organisations or philosophical and intellectual ideas.  They are merely creative and resourceful within disciplines and systems created by men, and in some disciplines more than others (women have not been terribly helpful or successful in, for instance, politics, warfare, history, science, economics, theology, and so forth).  The idea that "men" did this or "men" did that is strange, since women are not the primary actors in the history of mankind, especially in the Church and in politics.  They are always behind a man or beseeching a man to act, but ultimately all affairs of a public nature hinge upon men.  To pit men and women against one another in competition supposes that women could ever dethrone men from this position ordained by the natural law.  Assigning blame to one sex or another, therefore, seems rather pointless.  "Men" will not suffer uniquely without women suffering as well, since men and women are not equal yet distinct classes within an otherwise coherent social whole.  Women's existence presupposes men, and they find their purpose in subordinate positions woven into complex societies wherein men are the principals.

Yet Catholic men are the ultimate cause of civilization's downfall. There was a time when all of this could have been presented, had Catholic men reigned in their lusts for power and pleasure.

Catholic men also are the makers of Catholic culture and order, the ones who fought against it, and the ones who will restore it.  It could not have been otherwise.

We have to make our way back indeed, but I'm not going to use this conference as my charter for restoration, because this conference says implicitly that there is no part whatsoever for childless, unmarried laywomen to play in the restoration of all things in Christ. That cannot be possible.  

There is certainly no part in the world of men for childless, unmarried laywomen to play in the restoration of all things in Christ, at least not directly.  There is such a part for women in the affairs of men, both married and unmarried, religious or not -- that part is, like anything else, under the direction of men.  There is really no part for women in the restoration of all things in Christ except under the direct or indirect rule of men.  Prayer and charitable works are not "no part."  One has truly lost the vision of woman's glory if one believes that she can only succeed in the eyes of God by participating and excelling in the exclusive provinces of men -- politics, philosophy, warfare, etc.  

That erroneous presupposition is precisely the cause of feminism in the first place.  Imagine a lot of self-righteous, preachy, mannish WASPs from New England and Britain lecturing their husbands about the evils of drink and deciding that men are low and vulgar for preferring their wives to look feminine and attractive rather than appreciating a woman's mind alone.  Then imagine the suffragettes and prohibitionists.  You should have the same picture in your mind in each instance.  

The species of error is essentially Protestant/Manichaean : Nature as such is wounded and damaged in such a way that grace does not build upon it but rather morphs it into something else.  A man's nature in relation to women is thus perceived as being essentially filthy and in needs of being tempered by strict rules -- that is to say, the same old lie: true men are ashamed of what has traditionally been known as manliness; a true man hates intimacy with his wife triggered by natural attraction and instead wishes to have a marital relationship wherein he is deeply moved by an intellectual equal; a true man loves a mannish wife who desires to share his power; a true man enjoys women talking about politics, theology, philosophy, and money, etc.  Puerile men, by contrast, value silence in women, value women keeping themselves physically attractive, value submission to their direction, and detest when their wives preach at and nag them, etc.  If that is not the serpent talking, who is it ?  Does God not desire for women to look up to their husbands as lords, like Sarah did to Abraham ?

Quote from: Santo Subito

I think Graham brings up interesting points. The problem in the world at large is that this very conversation is forbidden. Just a few decades ago one could discuss this issue even though it might be controversial. Now radical feminism has so infected the culture that to even raise these questions is considered misogynistic and chauvinist. They have succeeded in silencing the opposition through caricature, name calling, and societal shunning. They are, quite frankly, and ironically, intolerant dictators.

We can see the same thing happened with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. It is now verboten to believe ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are disordered, sinful, or harmful. Now the march is underway to forbid public questioning of "gαy marriage." What will it be next? Probably polygamy. Then, perish the thought, pedophilia. The left keeps marching and cedes no ground.

Feminism has helped create a society of kids raised by strangers if they are allowed to be born at all. Women are taught by radical profs in college and by society that full time motherhood is selling out.

A lot of what you say here, Santo Subito, reflects the points made by Mgr Williamson. However, it is not entirely women's fault, as Mgr pointed out. First, it is the LIBERALISM which gave birth to a distorted view of how society should behave, then through the years it distorted how human beings were to behave contradicting the natural order that God created. Through many years then, the men themselves, at variance with God's laws, corrupted society, became more bestialised, exploited women for their pleasure and, in turn, made women feel exploited and dissatisfied with their position and roles.

St Pius X, a man of great vision, published his encyclical on Liberalism. However, man (men), for the most part, distanced themselves from God, continued with their exploitation, and yes, denigration, of women and the Women's Rights movement took off (in England) and led women into the sad position they are in today. Remember, it was in England this first took off, though the French Revolution was the first event that put women into the streets in a role that went against what their nature was.

Women thought they were fighting for a fairer role in society, even though it was the wrong role they fought for. Consider and look back at those years, the Victorian era through to the 1920s, study them and see how unjust much of society was, not only for women but also for the working men. That was why another great Pope, Leo XIII, wrote Rerum Novarum.

Go back and listen to Mgr Williamson. He says very clearly that women have been filling the role MEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING! They stepped into the 'vaccuum', as he so well puts it. Women today are not any happier, as they are so often juggling a dual role as wife and mother, and working mum. Women today are more exploited than ever as sex objects. And, no, no, no, it is not their fault, the men have lost sight of God and are no longer looking up, as Mgr said, but down, down, down, and their brains are so often below the belt (no, he didn't put it that way, but that's the truth of it).

We women must wait and hope that Catholic men will listen and become real men that women can trust and respect and look up to. Not dishrags. Come on men, look at the bigger picture and feel sorry for women who are struggling to be what they truly desire to be, even if only intuitively, and not what a Godless society has forced them to be. Stand up and be counted and don't be afraid to talk to other men, yes! other men, and show them through example and by talking to them, what they should be doing to improve society. Stop babying around and stop blaming the women. Be men! Go out there, memorise Bishop Williamson's brave words, and use them and put them into practice.

More could be said, much more, but this will suffice for now! May God guide us all.

There are certainly men out there who approve of feminism, but you can't exactly blame men in general for feminism's existance. A man cannot force a woman to to be a feminist.

Quote

The problem modernity presents is that there are almost no virgins left. Almost all women are whores.

There is nothing in between?

There are plenty of ugly virgins.  Women who are not attractive and are naturally shy tend not to sleep around with men.  I know at least a dozen women like this, early 20s, plain looks, size 12 or 14

If any man is prepared to marry a plain looking women he can find a virgin easily enough.

Gorgeous looking, slim, pretty virgins past the age of 21?  I agree, with you that in the western world they are reasonably rare.  Go to India, Middle East or many other such places and you can still find them though.

Based on my own experience, educated guesswork and judgement I would say that in about 10 percent of cases of Traditionalist Catholic marriages in the UK i would be confident that the women is still a virgin.  I am judging that by excluding the women who have had previous long term relationships with men dating intensively for more than a year and women who have previously dated a non Catholic as well as any woman who has lapsed for a period of time.  Not all of these have lost their virginity but experience would suggest most have.

But I am still of the opinion that 10 percent of young Trad brides are virgins however.

Plenty of non virgins go on to have happy and fruitful marriages though.  I wouldn't let it put me off marrying.

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Columba

Philandering was certainly not the cause of feminism but everyone formerly understood that women naturally take advantage and abuse power if allowed to do so by men.

Columba, men have cornered the market on abuse of power.

"And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16

Would you prefer the phrase "wrongly exercise control" to "abuse power?"

Women abuse their own power when they destroy their home and the souls of their children.

Men abuse their power when they do not govern properly, either by tyranny or by abdication. If a man abdicates and a woman steps in and does what he is supposed to do, yet it is not her power to abuse. She's not even usurping it. The Lord said that no one could take His life from Him, only He could lay it down. I think the same applies to male authority. A woman cannot take it from him. He only can lay it down.

When a woman steps in where a man should lead, she is not abusing power. She is trying to make up for a privation. Now many women are hungry for man's power, and covet it. Many women want power and control over men. But that is something belonging to the subjective order, wheres the authority of men is in the objective order, no?  

Modern wives routinely utilize implied threats of divorce (government-enforced estrangement from offspring and long-term financial ruin for the husband) in their biblically prophesied never-ending quest for control. If the husband foolishly succuмbs to the pressure and gives his wife the power she outwardly demands, his resulting emasculation causes the wife to loose her attraction and ironically increases the likelihood of ruinous divorce. The man must maintain headship at all costs. Unfortunately, the typical priest underestimates the effect of feminism on Catholic wives and does not appreciate the power struggles endemic to modern marriage. If called upon for counselling, such a priest can easily do more harm than good.

I'm going to take your word on this, as I have no personal experience to judge by.

I envy neither young men nor women. It's truly a shame.