Another Pedestalising Trad. Catholic
There’s just no escape from the “blame men; pedestalise women” meme. This has been one of the main disappointments I’ve faced since my conversion: that even Catholics don’t seem to know any better when it comes to what is wrong with the world. At Catholic Lane, Dale Ahlquist writes about The Triumphs and Failures of Feminism and somehow winds up blaming it all on men, all the while concluding it’s because “women are letting them get away with” shirking their masculine duty. So whose fault is it?
The premise is that abortion, the main triumph of feminism, exists because of a failure of masculinity; feminism exists also because of a failure of masculinity, which was foisted upon all the good women by a few. Now women are letting men get away with supporting feminism instead of being masculine, which can be accomplished by listening to the superior wisdom of the woman at home. Problem is, she no longer home but off in the workforce due to feminism.
So the answer is to man up and listen to the non-existent women with wisdom – those who have wisdom to know that feminism is bad. That way a man can be more masculine with his authority as women want, but apparently do not want, since they were pliable and dumb and followed the few bad women. Now if women are unhappy and homes are broken, it is not their fault; it is merely a failure of masculinity and men need to listen to women about this.
He also manages to miss the real issues in this convoluted and contradictory article that is full of hackneyed feminist ideas and is ultimately nothing more than yet more pandering to women and seeing the world as it should be, rather than dealing with it as it is. Problems will never be solved by constructing a false reality and then blaming one sex for not conforming to something that doesn’t exist except in the imaginations of feminists and traditionalists.
According to Ahlquist, abortion has made men less responsible for their actions, while I can only surmise as he doesn’t mention the irresponsibility of women, women are simply passive victims of the scary male sex drive yet again. Traditionalists, like feminists, seem to be afraid of men and think the best way to curb all those brutish tendencies lurking in the hearts men is for them to listen to women, who are really the smart ones who know what’s important:
Men claimed politics was important; women knew better. They knew what was really important: shaping the minds and souls of their children in the ideal and independent setting of the home.
Yes folks, all that silly talking men do is just so much bluster while we women get down to the real work of building cities, inventing things that make life run more smoothly – like cars, mass transit, washing machines, refrigerators…. Oh, wait, men invented and made those. Given what a bunch of ingrates women are for all the things men have done to make our lives easier it’s not all that surprising when men en masse decide “fuck it”. If you don’t think that’s happening, think again.
CL
7man
” the non-existent women with wisdom – those who have wisdom to know that feminism is bad. “
These women do exist, my friend. I have taught some. I know how to take a staunch feminist and deconstruct them until they are eager submissives, hoping to do my bidding.
I’m not kidding, man.
I am a Dominant. As in D/s, BDSM, Dominant. I am dirty, kinky, and I subjugate women.
They love it. Liberal chicks, conservative chicks, feminists- it doesn’t matter. Every one of them wants their ass spanked, wants discipline, wants correction, wants to play games- both sexual and psych-
I’m telling you, it is the ANSWER.
I do not have to deal with one shred of feminism in my dealings with women. I can rattle their cages in 2 sentences, and shake their world to the core in one conversation.
I think that if men would function with Dominance in the direction that I do, they would have a similar result. Women fall in line, and women respond to it, because they are designed to. All women are submissives, some of them just don’t know it yet. Trick is, the toughest ones need more aggressive technique, and the Dom must be of highest quality. These chicks are smart and can see right through a faker. A Dom who can pass shit-tests, however…
well, I don’t sit around bitching about feminism. I sit around telling my girls what to do. I praise them when they do well, and chastise them when I am displeased. They are smart, they are strong, they are sexy, and they never speak to me with disrespect. They are effective, they are satisifed (a satisfied woman? ’tis true)
Any man who does what I do can have this too, and anyone who sits around bitching about women and feminism, I tend to think they just don’t “get it”.
Any man who wanted me to show them how to do what I do, I would not point at the damn women. I would point at HIM.
to that end, I have to agree that feminism may be partly to blame by the vacuum of Dominant men. Men relinquished the throne. I don’t think ANY MAN should sit there and whine and tell mommy how they mean girl took his throne away.
I think a man should be a KING internally, take his throne and authority, and then wield it in a worthy and intelligent manner. Everything else will take care of itself. Women WILL serve a good King.
… man can be more masculine with his authority as women want …
I have to believe that the correct frame for a man is to be authoritative because it’s what he wants. (Any reassurances from Roissy that there will be little to no penalty — or even rewards! — for this should really be secondary considerations.)
@ Twenty
True, but what I am doing there is paraphrasing what the author of the original article is saying. I agree that none of this should be done “to please women” but because it is what men are meant to do.
@ Samuel
Good points. The problem with articles such as Ahlquist’s is that they provide more encouragement (as if they needed any) for Catholic women to blame men for all their problems, many of which are self-inflicted due to poor attitudes. What you are describing is a lot more work than a lot of men want in their lives. Both men and women bear some responsibility here as we have a situation now where women are “empowered” and ruling the roost while men have misplaced their balls.
Would you agree that as women vary in the amount of dominance they require, men also vary in the amount of which they are capable? It seems that while men can re-learn their natural dominance, there is an upper threshold which for some is higher than others.
Also, you realise I am not a man, right? I do believe that what you say is true and that it does work, just to be clear. It’s the pandering and contradictory tone of the article that I took issue with most.
I agree about this. The pandering is not new. It might have made some sense fifty years ago, when Catholic women were fairly well-behaved, and women in general. But now it makes no sense. Women have shown themselves to be just as immoral and bloodthirsty as men (viz. abortion). The last pope was a major pedestaliser. I think Benedict is a bit less deluded.
On the dominance thing, I suspect most women will respond to this. But the average woman will only want and need a bit of it. I spank my wife sometimes, for mutual enjoyment, but constantly having to play a role would get tiresome.
In a normal society, the average man should be dominant enough for the average woman.
Yes David, this is what I was getting at about the dominance. An occasional what I would call “vanilla spanking” is whole lot different than hardcore BDSM where the D/s element is central to the relationship.
Yes, I have a Christian marriage. I think we both like a traditional ethos, and we play up some of the old patriarchal things. But we still have jobs, children and live in the real world. A real BDSM relationship would be excessive.
The dynamics get set in a relationship in the beginning. If male leadership was not established, it may take a lot of male dominance to make the change. (Possibly more than is feasible.)
Ahlquist’s pandering makes it difficult for young Catholic men to establish leadership since the young Catholic women are constantly fed the message that men’s sexuality must be controlled by women. Ahlquist’s article also supports the ongoing belief that women are morally superior in existing marriages. This erodes marriages and causes unhappiness in both men and women which leads to divorce. It is simple; women do not trust a man that is not leading.
So if by chance a husband discovers that he needs to step up his leadership (dominance) it will take much more effort and energy to do so, possibly akin to what Samuel said above. But if his leadership and intolerance for disrespect from her is established in the beginning, then it is usually doesn’t take much dominance to maintain it. It actually is a very calm, peaceful and satisfying dynamic for both. It is sad that many Trads have become so pedestalizing which undermines the family they claim to value.
It is terribly important for a husband to start with a bit of “shock and awe” because husbands do go into chump slumps. It is inevitable that he will suffer from illnesses, job setbacks, worries about children, as time goes by. He needs to establish a firm pattern from the start. This was a lot easier when even the average man married with the social and religious support that he was the head of the house and his wife wore white for a reason on their wedding day. It is a lot harder in the current climate. Without the social support, he has to do it himself. Some men are a bit naturally weak and most know nothing of Game.
It is the decent men who have lost most in recent times, and they often pay for the sins of their more alpha brethren. Feminists are good at attacking weak men for the behaviour of strong men.
Don’t worry CL, I understood you were just quoting!
Just wanted to riff on the remark to make a point of my own.
I wonder what Chesterton would think that a man like this is a self-appointed guardian of his legacy.
@David Collard: “The last pope was a major pedestaliser. I think Benedict is a bit less deluded.”
True. I think Benedict on the whole is a bit more down to earth than JPII. In fairness though, JPII’s mother died when he was still a boy, so I think this had to contribute at least in part to a lot of his pedalestalizing of women.
@CL: “An occasional what I would call “vanilla spanking” is whole lot different than hardcore BDSM where the D/s element is central to the relationship.”
Please define “vanilla spanking” for us! And give details…haha.
Although I do agree that BDSM is quite a different beast altogether from traditional sexy spanking.
Hmm…”traditional sexy spanking…” I think I need to write a post on that.
Yes, good point about JPII.
A LOT of women like a “vanilla spanking”.
Another thing. Most serious male BDSM types seem to sometimes “switch”. That is not my style, thanks. Giving the Missus the odd consensual spanking is practically normal. But anything beyond that is getting into dangerous territory.
I think the difficulty many Catholics, especially those Catholics with a docility to authority, have is an inclination to think that the Pope’s thoughts at any given time are necessarily the thoughts of the Church. Then the extension is made that the thoughts the Pope has expressed at one time or another ought also to be my thoughts as an individual Catholic if I want to be a good Catholic in full communion with the Church. If I disagree with anything the Pope has expressed, I am in danger of insubordination and rebellion against Holy Mother Church.
The problem is that this approach is a misunderstanding of the office of the Pope. Principally, the Pope is a man just like any other man, given to the weakness of being subject to the excesses of his era, and subject to blindness in particular matters that make it perplexing to understand his approach for those who see clearly in the same matters. He can be subject to these weaknesses common to all men but still, as Catholics believe, hold the special charism of infallibility under certain circumstances by virtue of the divine office he holds.
While JPII was both a brilliant and holy man, it seems clear that he was blind to some of the blatant excesses of feminism in particular, and the evils of the ideology of feminism in general, especially as it has shown itself in Western societies. I suspect many Catholics, in wanting to remain faithful to the Church, have tried to reconcile his teaching on the relationships of men and women, which sadly includes dangerous components of feminism, by accepting his thought uncritically. Ahlquist’s article would be a good manifestation of this, if I am correct in what I suspect.
@ buckyinky:
I agree with you. That “mutual submission” thing (full disclosure: I haven’t read Theology of the Body but have read some about it) seems particularly erroneous. It may be that what he was getting at has been somewhat misunderstood; however, in stating it that way it is a short step to interpreting it as sanctioning egalitarianism in marriage, especially given the age in which we live and the lack of ability to discern subtly of thought that is all too common nowadays.
Jesus washes the disciples’ feet. That is not submission, but it could easily be mistaken for it.
Leadership is not brutality, even if occasionally brutal; Mastery is not mysogyny, even if it looks like it on TV; Lordship is not totalitarian, even when it calls for total commitment.
CL: Fixed the error for you.