Is here. I won't really comment on the article. It's typical progressive 'after 2000 years our generation will get it right', with a feminist spin. But read the comments. From 'give us your sperm then shut the hell up until we say so' to the groveling man singing of the superiority of the feminine, to the clear and obvious fact that even Salafi Muslims are more enlightened about gender equality than those wretched Catholic misogynists, it's all there for your reading pleasure.
A movement based on 'however many demographics hate each other is irrelevant, as long as the last vestiges of the Christian West are swept away' won't last long. My boys were debating Trump and his SCOTUS picks and what it might mean for the long term. Their primary hope? The Supreme Court can't change everything, but maybe having the right judges on the court will keep things in order until a generation arises that realizes we can't keep on like this.
If the comments in that comments section are any indicator, that's a long shot hope. But hope is always a precious commodity, so let's not minimize it.
From the comments
ReplyDeleteAnd another reason I do not connect with the church is because I am pro-choice, once a man's sperm leaves his body he has no control.
I guess we can end child support then, right? After all it's not up to the man if the child is born or not.
I've been wanting to muse on that as somehow the first giant leap into the pit we're in, when women said they define life when they bloody well want to, the man has absolutely no say at all; if the woman says terminate the baby, so be it, the man has no say. But if she says she wants it to be a baby, now the man steps in and pays the bills. It was then when such an obviously skewered and unfair approach became sanctioned that we were in trouble. That most men (all liberal and a great many conservatives) don't find a problem with that per se just shows how something utterly stupid and wrong can become social doctrine, if not the law.
DeleteI'm tempted to write a comment over there. But, to be honest, I've given up on trying to have a rational discussion on certain blogs over at Patheos. With a few exceptions, it's almost impossible.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to write a comment, I suppose it would be worthwhile to point out that research does support the idea that there is an asymmetry between male and female sexual desire, a claim that is not limited to Catholic men, but can found in completely secular sources (e.g. see here and here). Therefore, so the argument might go, this directly produces at least two moral obligations, one for men and one for women:
(1) Men have a moral obligation to cultivate greater impulse control -- as well as greater self-discipline over their sexual desires -- than women in order to compensate for this asymmetry. That is not to say that women don't also have an obligation to cultivate these virtues, given that they too have sexual desires that must be disciplined; indeed, given their unique biological capacities, cultivation of self-discipline is extremely important for women, since they are the ones that actually bear the immediate physical consequences of sex.
However, if there is an asymmetry between male and female sexual desire and impulses, then it seems that men will necessarily have to exercise control to a greater degree in certain respects. The stronger a desire is, and the greater certain impulses are, the more potential there is for that desire and those impulses to override reason and impair the intellect. So, if there is an asymmetry between men and women with respect to sexual desire and impulses, it would seem that men will have to make a greater effort to control them.
(2) Women have a moral obligation to at least be mindful of not doing anything that unnecessarily makes it more difficult for men to fulfill the moral obligation outlined above. To be sure, men have this obligation as well. Since women, too, must cultivate virtues such as self-discipline and self-restraint, men have a moral obligation to be mindful of not doing anything that unnecessarily makes it more difficult for women to fulfill their obligations.
However, given the fact that there seems to be this asymmetry between male and female sexual desire and impulses, it could be argued that women must fulfill this obligation in a unique way. That is to say, the virtue of modesty -- or at least that aspect of modesty that pertains to dress and appearance -- is complicated by the male-female asymmetry of sexual desire and impulses, even if we might say that modesty is nonetheless important for both men and women.
In short: Men and women both have an obligation to cultivate chastity and modesty, and to help one another so far as they can to cultivate those virtues. However, the male-female asymmetry of sexual desire and impulses -- as well the male-female sexual asymmetry of biological differences -- complicates this a bit.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts (to which one might pose questions or raise objections to). I would offer them in the comments over there on Patheos. But, depending on what sort of response I would get, I don't know how productive it would be.
That's one of the best breakdowns I've read. If you don't mind, I'll happily copy and reference that.
DeleteSure, I don't mind. And thanks.
DeleteTo summarize the argument again, but more precisely, one could say:
Men and women both have a two moral obligations: (1) to cultivate the virtues of chastity and modesty, and (2) to help the other so far as possible to cultivate those virtues. Both of these are crucial. And this is just what we should expect if, as social animals, we acquire certain virtues insofar as we are situated within complex social relationships and the wider society which help or hinder our ability to acquire those virtues.
But in addition to those two moral obligations men and women both have, there are two asymmetries that complicate the story: (1) the male-female asymmetry of sexual desire and impulses; and (2) the male-female sexual asymmetry of biological differences (e.g., it is women who bear the immediate physical consequences of sex, not men; and there is also a wealth of evidence that women are more vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections than men). So, as I briefly sketched in the previous comment, taking these asymmetries into account would be necessary when properly spelling out in greater detail the two moral obligations men and women each have.
Men and women both have a two moral obligations...
DeleteTypo. Should be: "Men and women both have two moral obligations..."
...as social animals, we acquire certain virtues insofar as we are situated within complex social relationships and the wider society which help or hinder our ability to acquire those virtues.
DeleteOn the other hand, maybe this is too strongly stated. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that our acquisition of certain virtues is influenced by our being situated within complex social relationships and the wider society which help or hinder our ability to acquire those virtues. The idea is that we must take seriously the social and relational dimension of the virtues and how they are acquired. We are responsible for our actions, true, but it's also true that our capacity for practical reasoning develops within and through our social relationships. (Hence the idea that, as has been said, men and women have an obligation to help one another so far as they can to cultivate these virtues.)
Anyway, just some more rough thoughts.
The notion that women have no obligation to dress modestly because it's up to men to control themselves always struck me as extremely uncharitable. I mean, sure, we all bear ultimate responsibility for our sinful actions; but if we really love other people, we should want to avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in their path to sainthood.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that struck me about the article was how extremely vague it was. There are no quotations of things that upset the author, nor any links so that we can check her assertions. Of course, any doubt about what she says would no doubt be dismissed as "mansplaining".
Incidentally, I notice that nobody over there seems to have any problem with talking about what men supposedly want. So apparently mansplaining is bad, but womansplaining is A-OK?
I've often said that the genius of feminism was to insist on absolute equality whenever convenient for women. If inequality or a good old double standard worked well for the benefit of women, that's fine too. And for reasons I've not grasped, men seem to go along with it.
DeleteAnd for reasons I've not grasped, men seem to go along with it.
DeleteAren't you married? Shouldn't the reasons be obvious? ;) ;) ;)
And for reasons I've not grasped, men seem to go along with it.
DeleteI guess it's because men are primed, by both evolution and culture, to want to protect women, so when a woman says that something is upsetting or threatening her, the natural response is to try and deal with it, not to question whether her claims are reasonable or not.