Overall very edifying. He is exactly right about how men stop trying when our competition is women. If I may draw out his meaning a little, it seems to me that the prospect of competing with a woman offers a man nothing, and worse than nothing, of what matters to him. Competing with a woman holds out no prospect of any honour to be won, since if he beats a woman, that is simply to be expected. But competing with a woman does hold the prospect of a loss of personal honour, if it happens that the man loses.

A physical competition of some kind is the simplest way to illustrate it. Say an arm-wrestling match. From the perspective of honour, why should a man bother to arm-wrestle with a woman? If he wins handily it has an air of ridiculousness about it, as if he arm-wrestled a child. If he wins barely, or loses to her, he suffers a loss of honour - he "lost to a girl", as the schoolyard insult goes. Why would a man subject himself to either possibility? If made to compete with a woman, the normal man will elect to make no effort, or, if the situation affords the possibility, deliberately to let her win, in an attempt to transform competition into light-hearted fun or gallantry. Obviously those tactics will spell disaster when the competition is in education or careers, and yet some men will choose them anyway. Others, in this case, will elect a third cognitive possibility, worse in a doctrinal sense, in deciding that men and women are the same, that honour is childish or "primitive" (in the conventional sense), and this decision effected under today's incoherent but ubiquitous refrain that "real men" don't believe in the existence of real men.

If we are talking about the slipping grades of boys relative to girls, I don't pretend that the key to understanding the entire situation lies in the idea of personal honour. Neverthless it contributes to the situation, and I think it is worth highlighting simply because it gets no attention in the usual apparati of public discourse, the idea of honour being too far afield.

The obvious rejoinder is that it is unfair if not socially harmful to restrain competition or hold back intelligent girls for the sake of protecting the "male ego". Fruitful discussion between that point of view and the normal point of view is probably impossible, but I will point out that the final cause of my argument here is not the so-called male ego or its protection, but the general intellectual superiority of men to women, which it is terribly foolish to compromise through corroding the drive to achievement, or in other words, honour.

With that all said, I don't like his Excellency's use of the word 'ego' here, since it has a negative sentimental connotation and moreover plays into the idea of the "fragile male ego". Honour is to be preferred.

I provided some minor insights into a single issue His Excellency raised, to wit, men’s slackening of effort when the competition is women. Quibble as you wish, I’m confident he would agree with what I wrote.

Now, the notion that women willingly obey a worthy man crops up often in these discussions, but it is assumed, undemonstrated, and has only a tenuous connection with observable reality. Eve didn't, so it's unrealistic, to say the least, to expect it of today's women. What one sees today is that many women, including otherwise Traditional ones, seek to intrude themselves in areas where men are showing leadership, and seek to undermine or provoke men, rather than support or encourage us, even in cases where the leadership is righteous and effective. Good will can’t be assumed in these things.

But it is too bad my post seemed to you like a complaint, becuase believe me, as a man, growth in virtue and being worthy of obedience figure large in my mind. Perhaps you're right that I expressed myself poorly.

The priest here is trying to force the congregation to sing at high masses. He says that Pius X had his whole congregation singing, and I frankly asked the question, "Did Pius X say that women should not sing in church?" And he answered my question by asking, and then answering the question in the video, "Why did Pius X say that women shouldn't sing in church?"

The entire reason I asked the question, was to illustrate that the priest at my Church now, is a liar, saying that Pius X wanted congregational singing, which totally contradicts what Pius X said in his own writing in 1903. That singing in Church is a "real liturgical office," and "therefore women are excluded" from singing.

If you don't have women singing in a choir, certainly you're not going to have them commingled in the congregation singing right alongside the men.

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.

Quote from: Santo Subito

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.

Yes it does seem that "trads" are drifting closer and closer to labeling pedophilia a "mental illness" which leads to the "logical" conclusion that the person cannot control themselves and therefore......tada, it's not a sin.

Actually, pedophilia is part of the ancient mind control programming used by generational Satanic families to split the personalities of their children. As the child matures, his separate personalities are programmed with distinct "Manchurian candidate" capabilities. Great strides were made in developing this technology in nαzι Germany. Operation Paperclip brought the top mind control researchers to America where advancement has continued ever since.

Many ostensibly religious organizations, including those labeling themselves as Catholic, secretly participate in this program under protection of the National Security Act.

Many ostensibly religious organizations, including those labeling themselves as Catholic, secretly participate in this program under protection of the National Security Act.

Which ones?

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.