Friday, February 07, 2014

WTF?



I knew this was going to happen. What's with the flame war between Neoreaction and the PUA's, huh? This is a completely regrettable development.

I've been blogging for almost 8 years and one of the most satisfying things to see happen during this period is the rise of the manosphere. One of the great things about the manosphere is that it is a broad church, where people from a variety of persuasions were able to talk to each other about a wide variety of shit which pertained to men. Particularly with regard to sex. Lot of pissing contests there but after a while most guys put down their cudgels.

Most people credit Moldbug with the rise of Neo-reaction. I say bullshit. Effective Neo-reaction -the thing that's gaining cultural traction-- is an offshoot of the manosphere. You can theorise all you want but unless you put your words into action none of it matters. The manosphere was a forum where men could go to find effective practical advice with regard to changing their lives. Nothing most primed men to the notion of Neoreaction than taking the "Red Pill". The men most responsible for this state of affairs were PUA's; particularly Roissy and Roosh.

The other person who set the tone for the Manosphere was Ferdinand Bardamu, (Matt Forney). In Mala Fide was where Manosphere reached criticality. Ferdi's "broad church" policy meant that any idiot could spout out whatever he liked unless he was completely batshit insane. It was a great blog and it is sadly missed. Many offshoot bloggers continued with this approach and ensured that there was no "orthodoxy" in the sphere. It was a Darwinian battlefield of ideas. Over time several ideas which are staple to the Neoreactionary canon gained traction; Game, HBD, anti-liberalism, mass stupidity and so on.

But buying into the manosphere did not mean buying into everyone of its ideas, and there is still a fair variety of opinion on certain matters. But it would be a mistake to say that just because people have differring opinions all of those opinions are of equal validity.

Now, I disagree with quite a lot of what Roissy and Roosh have to say. As a flawed Catholic their lifestyle is not an option for me. However, when it comes to the subject of women, I give them a lot of credence. In order to bed lots of women you have to know something about them and, therefore, they have authority on this subject: They have "Wet Dick" authority.  You can theorise all you want about female sexuality but unless you've gotten a woman into bed it's just that, a theory.

On the other hand, the PUA types are liable to engage in the Wet Dick Fallacy (Hat tip. Bryce) where they feel that their notch count gives them authority to speak on matters outside their expertise. Now this creates a problem for the Christian members of the manosphere, who, because of the religious beliefs, can't screw around. In debates, PUA's are liable to "pull rank" on them by virtue of their notch count, and to a degree they are justified, but only when it comes to the subject of getting women into bed. When they start pulling rank on other issues, they've exceeded their authority.  Roosh measures his long term relationships in terms of months. I've been married for over 20 years, in a very, very good marriage: both physically and emotionally. When the PUA's diss marriage, I kind of tune out. When it comes to long term relationships, Dave from Hawaii, Dalrock and I can pull rank on this issue.

I honestly have a great deal of time for PUA's when it comes to insights on female sexuality. They have had a positive impact on my personal life and professional practice. Because of patient confidentiality I cannot relate some of my cases (both male and female) where their lives have been positively changed by the practical application of Game. Game is Good. The important thing here is that we can learn from each other.

At it's core, Neoreaction is the truth asserting itself against error.  For example, the pushback against Democracy is not based upon some monarchist or aristocratic sentiment , rather, the realisation that the underlying principals of democracy don't align with reality.  Likewise, Game is Neoreactioary insofar as it is a corrective to the misconceptions of female sexuality. It (is) should be part of the Canon.

Like most Neoreactionaries, I'm concerned with saving Western Civilisation. Screwing around does not help this one iota on a whole variety of levels. Consequently, the Gamer's get a lot of heat from the Trads on this issue. I must admit it doesn't bother me as much because I think hedonism is a natural weakness, feminism is an unnatural disease. The other reason I don't give them so much heat is because of the underling sexual dynamics at play in a sexual free market. In the West, it is the women who control sexuality and if the place resembles a brothel is because women want it to be that way. The PUA's are simply taking advantage of the situation: they are a second order phenomenon. The primary pathogen is female promiscuity.

PUA's are not like Jedi Masters, able to exert some some irresistible mind control over women. To think so is to deny women moral agency. No PUA advocates rape, despite feminist attempts to smear them with this charge. For every successful notch there has to be a woman who has willingly spread her legs. A while ago, Roosh tweeted about his failed attempt to seduce a young Croatian girl who was studying to become a nun.  (See here re correction) You can't run a brothel without whores.

All I'm saying that this flame war is hugely counterproductive. Traddish types need to remember that the PUA's are taking advantage of the situation they are not the cause of it. Looking at the degree of ruin about us, all I can say is when it comes to PUA's, "Man, I can understand why you want to lounge poolside".  But for some of us life is more than just sex.  We don't want our God-like reason to "fust in us unused". We are patriarchs who will be held to account for our time on earth. We have a duty to our families, communities, friends and even you. For some of us, not screwing around is not because we can't but because we won't. I love your insights but when it comes to manhood, yours is not the sole metric.

Men are always going to engage in pissing contests with each other, that's to be expected. But stop for a second and look at the bigger picture lest everything our fathers built fall in ruins amongst us. A shit fight amongst the manosphere is to no one's benefit.

Peace.

79 comments:

rmaxGenactivePUA said...

Actually I find it disturbing theres so many christians & catholics trying to invade the manosphere

Why dont you guys try & masculinise your centuries of pussified religions, & inject game & red pill into your reformed slut churches & blogs

& no years of having no experience with less then one chick, doesnt give you more experience on LTR's then a PUA or gamer

Most PUA's & gamer's run LTR harem's

ALL married men, are nothing more then pussy whipped from years of being with just one woman, including Dalrock ...

The Social Pathologist said...

Your comment has been noted.

The Social Pathologist said...

BTW, you site comes across as more MRA then PUA. My commiserations.

Brendan said...

I see the falling out as coming between the Christian manosphere and the Game-oriented, or even Game-tolerant, manosphere. There are a few voices who have been very actively trying to achieve this, and they have succeeded. They aren't motivated by trying to take down the manosphere per se (although I think they wouldn't care if that happened), but because they think that Game is harmful for Christians. I think this is a bigger split than the NR/PUA split, to be honest -- although there are overlaps, because there are quite a few Christians in the sphere who consider themselves to be at least somewhat NR.

Julian O'Dea said...

Good post.

I think the winners are men who get their dicks wet in a wife who gets their clothes wet in the laundry.

Julian

yodawg said...

Why are you talking like a nigger all of a sudden?

Anyway, a real Christian has a lot to think about if it's come to the point where he's starting to think that false bravado, smirking like a chimp, and "hitting the gym, bro" are the imperatives of proper Christian marriage. Your uncritical acceptance of "game", PUAs, and the rest of this manosphere nonsense is not doing those guys any favors.

A Man for all Seasons said...

"false bravado, smirking like a chimp, and 'hitting the gym, bro'"

This is what a politician would call spin. You describe behavior for becoming a more attractive man in the most negative terms you can think of. Let's look at it a different way.

A man should stop bottling up his natural masculine confidence and aggression, he should show leadership in his relationship instead of trying to have an equal partnership, and he should make sure not to be out of shape.

This is really good advice for married Christian men, advice that a huge percentage of men are sorely in violation of, and it is not contrary to the Bible in any way.

yodawg said...

It's not "spin" if it accurately describes the decrees of the pope of the manosphere - Roissy - as it does. Game in the alt-right/neoreaction/mano - sphere turns around Roissy's blog and it's proclamations. If you want to redefine game to mean chopping wood in the backyard and growing a beard, or some other back-to-the-old-ways fantasy, fine. If you want to harken back to what the Bible told you you should be, fine again. But don't call it game. Game is about creating a false impressions for the purpose of seducing women, which is something that if Christ had bothered to opine on, he would have condemned.

If you want to take game and strip it of all the duplicity, cunning, falsity and questionable behavior but keep the lofty principles like leadership, athleticism, assertiveness, traditional masculine bearing, etc, etc, that's ok too, but then why do you insist on calling it game? It clearly has nothing to do with Roissy game, which is focused on using duplicity and cunning to seduce sluts into fornication. There is a very good reason why "trad" types instinctively recoil at that type of game, which glossing over like SP is doing here, doesn't help.

A Man for all Seasons said...

One of us is hung up on the word game, but it's not me. The OP talks about neoreaction and the red pill. If you read the newest post in each of the top 10 manosphere blogs, you will have already gained a wider perspective that you are trying to ascribe to the concept of game. Who cares about "game"? Even if you focus on PUAs, it is immediately obvious that learning routines and negs is considered oh so 2007. Inner game, self improvement, and advanced understanding and experience of attraction dynamics are what the PUAs advocate.

You give away your own argument. Yes, the red pill is focused on leadership, athleticism, assertiveness, and traditional masculine bearing. Even PUAs talk a lot about these things. You seem to think the shallow, duplicitous side of game is its primary characteristic, and then turn around and try to dismiss the whole of red pill knowledge, including ideas of real truth and value.
You keep focusing on Roissy or Roosh. How hard do you think it would be to find earnest and convincing posts by both of these guys about leadership, athleticism, assertiveness, and traditional masculine bearing? These ideas are certainly discussed in the comment sections of their blogs.

Stop being so hung up on PUAs using cheap lines. This is not the essence of the red pill, it is a peripheral factor. There are plenty of red pill concepts that are good and right, and these should be learned and practiced by Godly men.

I suspect you are unable to let go of 2007 PUA game, and will always want to throw out the good red pill concepts along with the negs and the palm reading routines. However, I believe other readers will see your arguments more clearly, and they are the ones I hope to convince.

candide3 said...

> What's with the flame war between Neoreaction and the PUA's, huh?
Huh? None of the top-line NRs wrote about it, you are first. I must have missed all the fun. Where is it?

Inane Rambler said...

Nrxn and the Manosphere were fellow travelers, and overlapped with some individuals (Matt, Roissy) but the hardcore political theorist types (Nyd, Land, Anissimov) never really had much association with the Manosphere (Anissimov is a traditionalist and Nyd is bisexual.)

Aquinas Dad said...

How to put this....
I see neo-reactionaries as johnny-come-latelys to the field of the counter-enlightenment. While I admire their verve and curiosity they are often reluctant to even admit that older groups exist, let alone could teach them something.
I certainly don't think they should have a conflict with the PUAs - the PUAs should be ignored, largely, as they have nothing of value to say except 'feminism is bad', which is hardly rare or insightful.

dalrock said...

In the West, it is the women who control sexuality and if the place resembles a brothel is because women want it to be that way. The PUA's are simply taking advantage of the situation: they are a second order phenomenon. The primary pathogen is female promiscuity.

This is it, but confronting the real problem is more challenging and less fulfilling than blaming the PUA's. Imagine a priest/pastor standing in front of the congregation denouncing the PUAs. He would be roundly applauded for his bravery in taking such a bold stand against sexual sin and debauchery. Much hand shaking and back slapping would follow. Instead, imagine him denouncing the much more widespread practice of women delaying marriage to practice serial monogamy for a decade or more once coming of age, or denouncing women using threats of divorce to gain power in their marriages. There would be hell to pay, and on top of that he would feel like a bully.

The temptation to choose the posture which results in backslapping vs being seen as the turd in the punchbowl is incredibly strong.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Brendan

I think this is a bigger split than the NR/PUA split, to be honest -- although there are overlaps, because there are quite a few Christians in the sphere who consider themselves to be at least somewhat NR.

Agreed. There is a growing realisation in me that the Trads are the enemy in any pushback against modernity.

@Julian.

Thanks for dropping by. Agreed.

@Yodawg

Why are you talking like a nigger all of a sudden?

Says a man called Yodawg.

Game is about creating a false impressions for the purpose of seducing women, which is something that if Christ had bothered to opine on, he would have condemned.

That's a retarded reframe with a strong whiff of troll about it. Take your Churchianity with you to another blog. You too retarded for the conversation here. Godspeed.

@Candide3

Dust up on Twitter. I won't go any further into it.

@Inanne Rambler.

For the political types it's all politics. They're crypo socialists who think that the world can be made a better place through better political organisation. The contemporary cultural malaise transcends politics.

Roissy gave me real hope the first time I read him. Not simply for his exposition of game but rather, I thought to myself, here is the first non-theoretical effective pushback against feminism. It's not that Game is just opposed to Churchianity, its violently opposed to feminism as well. It's anti-feminism (and Churchianity) hitched to the sexual drive of males. Just think about for a while and its magnitude and potential will dawn up you.

@ Dalrock

The temptation to choose the posture which results in backslapping vs being seen as the turd in the punchbowl is incredibly strong.

Brilliantly put. But I feel the problem is on a more fundamental level, so many Churchianity types can't even see the problem with women and instead defer all blame onto men.

@AD.

I've got to go to work now and I'll reply later. Brief question though; are you familiar with Maurice Blondel?

Anonymous said...

nero and rome or something

Jason said...

I think the major problem doctor is that the law of diminishing returns has set in, with bloggers and their acolytes just saying the same things over and over again. Hence the constant pissing matches, for people really have nothing more to say. To be sure, as Dr. Johnson says we need to be reminded more often that instructed, but I think that the manosphere has reached a certain cul de sac as far as their message concerned, and its ideologues are uncertain as to what to do next. I know you and others may disagree with me about this, but I think that if traditionalists/Christians/Alternative Conservatives/etc., etc. really want their message to have an impact then they're going to have to go beyond their blogs and make prudent efforts in their churches and other environments to make this change actually happen. Awareness ultimately is not enough, and if the manosphere just continues in simply hating feminism and white-knights and churchianity and all that, then the sort of malaise that you describe here is simply going to become more pronounced.

Anonymous said...

Jason:

that if traditionalists/Christians/Alternative Conservatives/etc., etc. really want their message to have an impact then they're going to have to go beyond their blogs and make prudent efforts in their churches and other environments to make this change actually happen.

There are already people doing things like that who have been teaching the reality about men and women in a Christian manner for some time who are trying to make an impact in the world. I would say Opus Dei is one example of this. I love this one quote of St. Josemaria, as it so aptly encapsulates the position of the wankfest of llazybutts ont he internet.

"There are many Christians who are persuaded that the Redemption will be completed in all environments of the world, and that there have to be some souls — they do not know which ones — who will contribute to carrying it out with Christ. But they think it will take centuries, many centuries. It would be an eternity, if it were to take place at the rate of their self-giving.
"That was the way you yourself thought, until someone came to 'wake you up'."
-The Furrow, 1

"Don't let your life be barren. Be useful. Make yourself felt. Shine forth with the torch of your faith and your love.
"With your apostolic life, wipe out the trail of filth and slime left by the corrupt sowers of hatred. And set aflame all the ways of the earth with the fire of Christ that you bear in your heart."
-The Way, 1

"Don't say: 'That's the way I'm made... it's my character'. It's your lack of character: Esto vir - Be a man."
-The Way, 4

The Social Pathologist said...

AD

I see neo-reactionaries as johnny-come-latelys to the field of the counter-enlightenment. While I admire their verve and curiosity they are often reluctant to even admit that older groups exist, let alone could teach them something.

The nature of our education system does not expose people to the counter-enlightenment. It's true that people are finding this stuff out on their own, but I don't think people acknowledge the past out of spite more out of ignorance. As for the past teaching us something, I think that is valuable, namely in order to avoid the old prescriptions which failed so miserably in stopping the enlightenment.

the PUAs should be ignored, largely, as they have nothing of value to say except 'feminism is bad', which is hardly rare or insightful.

Except that's not all that they say.

Firstly, they are pro femininity. They are paradoxically hostile to the promiscuous female as a long term mate. They have a good understanding of female sexual psychology and fourthly they also have recognised that traditional models of masculinity are sexually bland.



Novaseeker said...

There's really this bizarre aspect to some of the current pushback really.

Cane has a series of posts which are basically lambasting the use of reason for Christians as a basis for anything -- sola scriptura kind of run amok, it seems. Even to the point of dissing Aquinas as being unnecessary. Really has it in for "the Greeks" (never mind that it was Greek philosophical ideas that lay at the foundation of defeating several early Christian heresies that the scriptural text could not in itself do, such as the word "homoousion" in the Creed).

The connection of this to anti-Game is that it is fundamentally hostile to any kind of "worldly" analysis of what is taking place between men and women, apart from reading the Bible. This kind of scriptural fundamentalism will always have some audience among Christians, especially the conservative oriented ones around the Christian parts of this corner of the internet, but overall it strikes me as a colossal failure on a number of levels, well beyond the application of this approach to criticize Game.

I agree that this is likely a larger problem relating to "Traditionalism" as we see it acting out today -- this vein fairly much outright rejects any kind of seeking of systematic understandings as being "nerdy" and "unnecessary". Very misguided, it seems to me.

The Social Pathologist said...

There's really this bizarre aspect to some of the current pushback really.

I've just had a look at Cane's Blog.
Re: St Thomas.Quote:

This is a long conversation that I’m not terribly interested in having right now. Suffice it to say that a clear reading of the Bible is more useful, shorter, and deeper than some ancient nerd’s meandering attempt to justify the living Christ to dead Greeks.

I'm all for the inspired man of God, who is of humble means, but all I can say to this is.. .....wow......just.....wow. I mean, where do you begin. Is there any common language? Are we of the same species?

Nova, it really does border on the bizzaro. It really does. Some of the pushback has the features of the mentally deranged, I dunno. But I reckon I've finally reached a point where I see talking to these guys as just a waste of time.

I agree that there is a strong sense of anti-intellectualism amongst the trads, as if reason is the enemy of faith. These guys can't distinguish between reason-in -truth and reason-in-error. They just issue a blanket fatwah. I really have nothing in common with these guys.

I reckon the best thing now is to steer clear from them and leave them to their own devices. I can't see the manosphere profit from their participation.

I agree that this is likely a larger problem relating to "Traditionalism" as we see it acting out today -- this vein fairly much outright rejects any kind of seeking of systematic understandings as being "nerdy" and "unnecessary". Very misguided, it seems to me.

I think some of the smarter analysts of the Crisis of the West see the trads as just as much of a problem as the modernists.

Julian O'Dea said...

"I think some of the smarter analysts of the Crisis of the West see the trads as just as much of a problem as the modernists."

Now that is an interesting remark. I used to identify with Catholic Trads quite a lot, and I still see value in what they do, but they don't seem to have the courage of their convictions.

My wife and I had a real run-in with some of them because one of their number had a wife with young children and a breadwinning husband who wanted to go into politics. She did too.

When I reminded them of how unTraditional that was, they took offence.

They seem to melt away in the face of reality.

That is one reason why I won't join in their lamentations over Pope Francis.

Aquinas Dad said...

"...are you familiar with Maurice Blondel?"
It has been a few years, but yes, And with Lubac's related writings a little,a s well.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
Granted, the public education system and college system is critically flawed and very pro-Enlightenment for obvious reasons. And I would never accuse these young men and women of consciously or maliciously rejecting older people or groups - it is just how autodidacts *are* when they begin [I have 5 sons, I see this all the time].

"...[PUAs} have a good understanding of female sexual psychology..."
I dispute this; their extremely narrow focus of 'targets', their very low 'success' rates, and their blunt admission that their concepts just flat don't work on a large number of women nor in a lot of cultures argues that what skills they have are actually cultural, and limited to specific sub-cultures, at that.

"...traditional models of masculinity are sexually bland."
I understand that we live in a culture (Western Anglosphere in particular) that at best doesn't get such things as prudence or temperance while elevating eros to the pinnacle of achievement, but how can any actual masculine state be 'bland sexually'?
I am reminded of a scifi b-movie I saw decades ago where the science officer of a spaceship announced 'it is 33% carbon. It can't be organic'. My wife spit out her drink laughing and I chuckled, too. In actual science 'organic' means 'it has carbon in it'.
Is a traditional Catholic version of masculinity from, oh, Spain n the 1930's 'sexually bland'? Have you read the warnings Protestant women issued in urban areas in the inter-war years that their daughters shouldn't be allowed to mingle with 'the Irish Papists' because so many Lutheran and Presbyterian girls were getting *cough* 'charmed into marriage' by Irish Catholics?
Besides, the advice from "game" on how to be attractive that s not in direct contradiction of Catholic morality is just another variation of BCAYCDI - what is more confident than a courageous man with self-control, prudence, a dedication to honesty, and hope?

Aquinas Dad said...

Julian,
As a traditional Catholic - yeah, that's pretty common. The one that I have been 'making friends' over is the following combination
trad Catholic I am talking to about my courtship and engagement lecture: 'I am very focused on my daughters being as traditional as possible. Good wives, good mothers, stay at home, home schooling, etc."
same person after my lecture: 'Well, what you said sounded great, but, well, I insist that my daughters all go to college and at least start a career! They have to develop their intellect and you never know - if they are widowed they will need to be able to work'
*sigh*
I usually respond with two things
1 - 'sounds like a pre-nup, doesn't it?'
2 - 'I also give lectures on finding a husband to unmarried Catholic women in their late 20's. '

The Social Pathologist said...

@Julian

I take the Whittaker Chambers view of history. i.e. that the rise of modernism shouldn't just be seen as a rebellion against faith, rather, there was a co-existent failure of faith which assisted them.

Ostensibly, the faith seemed mighty fine at the end of the 19th C if one was to analyse it from a statistical point of view. Number of Church's, Children, vocations etc, but some of the smarter guys realised that there was a real problem with religion at the time which facilitated the rise of modernism. Hence my interest in Blondel and the Catholic revival in France.

My beef with the the Trads is that they have ossified the faith and stopped it from being a dynamic thing. In the end it becomes a thing of rules and regulations and assumes a Pharisaical whiff.

I don't mind the mainstream Trads, most of them are in it for the aesthetics of trad Catholicism, I think one of the strengths of traditionalism was in its beauty. A Gregorian "Agnus Dei" can still make my hair stand on end whilst the "kumbaya" version makes me want to vomit. They love the smell of incense and all the ceremony but when the rubber hits the road, they bend like everyone else.

The ones that cause the most problem are doctrinare legalists who stymie the faith by reducing its capacity to "contingently respond", hence, allowing Modernism to run circles around it.

BTW, I'm far more flexible with regard to female roles. One of my ways of treating post natal depression is to send the woman back into the workforce--part time.
After 20 years of practice, I've never had to admit a woman to hospital for this condition. Some women are simply not meant to stay at home but they are good mothers.

In fact, the woman issue illustrates the problems with traditionalism perfectly. The old model of femininity pushed women into stay-at-home roles. This was of benefit to the majority of women however a large portion of women became intensely dissatisfied with this state of affairs--to the point of clinical depression. There was no one out there to argue their case. Now a dynamic religion would have tried to find some form of solution which was compatible with it. The Church offered none (Until Mulieris Dignitatem, one hundred years too late). One can only speculate on the trajectory of Feminism if this document had been promulgated at the end of the 19th C.

Julian O'Dea said...

I have no problem with women in the workforce, on the whole, but I doubt it is a panacea. Women seem to be pretty unhappy creatures at the best of times, and I see no evidence that they are happier in the workforce than at home.

We have had this debate before, and I instanced the heavy use of mood altering drugs among modern women.

My objection in that case was that the woman had small children and her husband had a decent job. It was just ambition and I don't think that political office is compatible with motherhood of young children.

My wife has mostly worked part-time and now that I am retired she is full-time.

As for Mulieris Dignitatem, spare me! I think it was a mess intellectually and just added to the burden of Catholic husbands. It was a clericalist attempt to stave off feminist attacks on the all-male priesthood, and JPII was ready to undermine husbandly authority to do it, with some highly dubious exegesis of Ephesians.

It is hard to be sure, because it is poorly written and poorly translated, but I think he was simply restating male headship, but in such a vague and unclear way as to give every feminist wife in the Catholic world an excuse to do her own thing.

I thought it was an intellectual and moral disgrace.

I have noticed the latter two pontiffs are a bit more realistic about women. A few million abortions and wife-initiated divorces later.

And I can't remember it saying much of use about women in the workforce. That pope started out talking women back into the home, but then seemed to change his mind. As he did on a number of issues.

I have to accept his canonisation, but I thought he was not a good pope, even if he was a good man.

The Social Pathologist said...

@AD

I dispute this; their extremely narrow focus of 'targets', ......

What totally amazes me is your disregard of the testimonies of men who have their lives changed by their uptake of it. It's a bit like an atheist "explaining away" a religious conversion.

The metric of success of game isn't the notch count, rather, the ability to have the type of relationship you want to have with a woman. Now, for the guys who want to have have random sex with women, most of the manosphere is quite aware that Game is not some sure fire method of getting women into bed, rather, it increases the odds.

but how can any actual masculine state be 'bland sexually'?

What exactly consitutes the masculine, particularly the erotic component of it?

what is more confident than a courageous man with self-control, prudence, a dedication to honesty, and hope?

Take a look at this graph, What is the Christian analysis of this discrepancy? All are men, yet are you going to argue to that the men doing maths are less courageous, industrious and charming than the others?

Can we have a Catholic explanation for the discrepancy?

s a traditional Catholic version of masculinity from, oh, Spain n the 1930's 'sexually bland'?....

Did machismo thrive because of Catholicism or in spite of it? I don't have a good knowledge of Spain but apart from enforcing traditional role models, I don't think that Spanish Church actively cultivated the notion.

There are two components to masculinity. Masculine virtue as defined by men and Masculine virtue as defined by woman. There is some overlap but the erotic is not something the Church has cultivated. Game is about recognising this latter dimension.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Julian

Most women want to stay at home but is a sizeable portion who work because they enjoy it, and find being at home insufferable. Lots of them want to get out of the house for a while for a bit of sanity. Having a uterus does not naturally make a woman a homemaker.


and I see no evidence that they are happier in the workforce than at home.

I beg to differ. This is how I put food on my table. It's the great silent epidemic out there. Lot's of women are miserable at home but won't let on less they be thought a poor mother. Ask your wife if she knows any women like this.

@JPII had a rather romantic notion of women, but that doesn't take away from the legitimacy of the document. Women have something to offer society in addition to being homemaker but it should not come at the expense of their femininity.

I like hot secretaries!

Julian O'Dea said...

Surveys show that most wives and mothers want part-time work.

I honestly cannot remember anything of that in MD, and it is not a high level of teaching anyway.

I think we are focusing on different parts of the document.

I think he had more than a romantic idea of women. I think he seriously underestimated the effects of original sin on men and women.

I am not sure how hot secretaries got into it.

Julian O'Dea said...

And yes Game works. In marriage.

My problem with JPII was that it is precisely pedestalising of women that makes men weak husbands.

I am not surprised by your Wellesley women.

Back to Game. It works like clockwork in my experience. In a marriage. I have never been a "player".

Novaseeker said...

The critical issue, it seems to me, is whether Christians can come up with a way of marriage which is both authentically Christian while also being well-adjusted to the contemporary circumstances in which we all live.

By the latter, I mean the following two core realities:

(1) most women are going to be engaged in paid work outside the home -- which also means an emphasis on education and career starting in the 20s, and therefore later marriages – this is no less the case for the kids of “traditionalists” than it is for others, as we have seen from the anecdotes in this thread – realities are realities, and people tend to deal with realities rather than theories when reality is staring them in the face; and

(2) marriages are entered into and evaluated, at least in part, on the degree of “hedonic lift” or happiness they generate for the spouses (there are many other factors, but this is a “must have” in the 21st Century for pretty much all marriages).

Neither of these is going to “go back” to how it was before, at least not without some kind of doom porn societal collapse that no-one should wish for.

It strikes me that traditionalists are not willing to concede these realities, and accept their good aspects and adapt to them, but instead want to resist them as realities and try to act if they aren’t realities, and as if they can live as if it were still the 19th Century in many ways. Now I understand that this isn’t out of cussedness, but rather out of a genuine concern that there is no model which is adaptive to these new realities which can be authentically Christian – so that, to me, is the main question, and the one on which traditionalists disagree.

What SP is arguing is that we can build a model that is Christian while also being adaptive to the realities of women’s expanded role economically and socially, as well as the changed expectations of marital relationships (i.e., increased emphasis on hedonic aspects, which means establishing and maintaining erotic attraction).

Julian O'Dea said...

Yes, but why give ground that hasn't been lost? What, precisely, are women doing in the workforce that men can't do? Show me the wealth-generating women. Show me the innovating women.

We have to listen to the self-congratulatory propaganda but we don't have to believe it, especially as the message veers from week to week. Is it the End of Men OR is it Women Only Earn 70 Cents in the Dollar? Which week is it?

Also, since when is work about fun? It never was for men.





Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
You wrote,
"...disregard of the testimonies of men who have their lives changed by their uptake of it. It's a bit like an atheist "explaining away" a religious conversion...."
No; I addressed it - the BCAYDI method/mentality is at the heart of most self-help systems aimed at men from 'Think and Grow Rich' to 'How to Sell Anything to Anyone' and 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
And the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data' - Scientology can cough of thousands of celebrity spokespeople who report Scientology improved their lives - does this reveal that Scientology has found a core truth unknown to the Catholic Church? Should we all adopt Scientology's metaphysical underpinnings (including the idea that we have alien souls trapped in out bodies by a galactic despot who flew a spaceship that looks like a DC-9)? Or can we just ackowledge the perennial appeal of gnostic concepts because they help others feel self-confident and special (i.e., another BCAYCDI effect)?
You wrote,
"What is the Christian analysis of this discrepancy? All are men, yet are you going to argue to that the men doing maths are less courageous, industrious and charming than the others?"
Well, first I will point out that the chart clearly says that the statistics are from Wellesley college. That is deals with students at Wellesley.
Wellesley is a women's college. I know this personally since my wife is also an alumna of one of the Seven Sisters. This is a chart concerning rates of virginity among students at a *women's college* based on major.
I think it has very, very little to say about men, don't you?
As a Catholic theologian my initial, shallow, analysis is that appears some majors eat up more leisure time and attract certain personality types regardless of their sex.
[more later - off to Mass]

Novaseeker said...

Yes, but why give ground that hasn't been lost?

It's not about giving ground, Julian. It's about working with the reality that the mass of women are not going to go back to the kitchen. That's gone. It's in the past. You may be able to carve out a niche here and there, but that's all it is -- the broad swathe of Christians are not going to be living that way. Accepting that as the new reality and adapting to it without compromising core principles is really what is called for here, rather than some pie-in-the-sky hope for a broad retrenchment -- not going to happen.

RobertW said...

Good column! I agree with much of it. Would I want to live Roosh's life? Probably not (well maybe for a month or two :) but there is no denying the value of the knowledge and experience he brings to the table. I am flummoxed by the way the supposedly traditional conservatives are playing right into the hands of the feminists and they don't even see it. I suspect a lot has to do with plain old envy. But I have even seen blog articles on Christian sites that it is a sin to use game even on your wife in order to improve your marriage and increase your attractiveness to her. What a grim pussified world. I read that men were dropping out of church in record numbers because of the feminization of the modern church. I don't know if it is true or not, but if so they can also thank the modern "traditional conservatives" as well.

4411 said...

@Robert

Regarding gender and attendance:

http://brewright.blogspot.ca/2007/04/church-attendance-by-gender-and.html

Aquinas Dad said...

Novaseeker,
Why not? Why can't we get to a world that has most women in the kitchen?
Well, beyond the fact that such a world was always an aspiration - women have always worked outside the home (look up what the name 'Brewster' means sometime) - rather than reality the fact remains that among incoming female freshman in colleges in the US 50% state that their ultimate goal is to be a stay at home mother. And 3 years after graduation about 15% of those who, as freshmen, said their ultimate goal was something else change their minds to desiring to be SAHM's.
Or, shorter - even in the West, even in college, about 65% of young women want to be stay at home wives and mothers.
Think about that a minute. Not only does this mean that the idea of women returning to traditional roles is possible it means that more women want it than don't

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Nova

You've expressed my position better than I have!

changed expectations of marital relationships

What I find striking about the Trads is their hostility towards the hedonic component. Here, I'm not talking about just sex, rather, the notion that the happiness and enjoyment (of the flesh) are somehow hostile to being a good Christian. The notion that any conception of marriage should give consideration to these things is immediately assumed to be malign.

It's not about giving ground, Julian. It's about working with the reality that the mass of women are not going to go back to the kitchen.

I'd go a little bit further than this. The fact is that some women are not temperamentally suited to being in the kitchen in the first place and that forcing this role on them actually makes the physically unwell.

20 years ago I would have concurred with Julian's view, however, clinical experience has taught me otherwise. The really interesting thing about my work is seeing how the stay-at-home experience affects women. Many of my "go-girl" colleagues dropped medicine like a hot cake once they became mothers (In fact many of their husbands would like them to work more.) On the other hand, I know quite a few women who were committed to being stay-at-home mothers and found out that they couldn't handle it. Women have little insight into their own natures.

@Julian

I'm fully aware that many women want to work part time, but that also implies that they want to be part time stay-at-home mums, hence, the legitimacy of employment for these women.

Yes, but why give ground that hasn't been lost? What, precisely, are women doing in the workforce that men can't do? Show me the wealth-generating women. Show me the innovating women.

This is a huge topic which the combox can't give justice to, but for the majority of the women, work gives them a venue for their social natures and gives them time away from the kids. The money is of secondary importance.

@AD

I think it has very, very little to say about men, don't you?

You are correct and I am wrong on this matter. I thought the graph included MIT graduates as well. My mistake.

But the graph was meant to be used as an illustration of the link between virginity and "dorkiness". Thus, the thrust of my argument is: How does Christianity handle the subject of Dorkiness? What is the Christian conception of it?

I've got to go to work now.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
You wrote,
"There are two components to masculinity. Masculine virtue as defined by men and Masculine virtue as defined by woman."
I would reply with this,
There is one component to masculine virtue - that defined by God.
My MIL spent time in the publishing industry and had some interaction with romance publishing - the running gag was that historical romances were about Catholics - irish, Scottish Highlanders, Spaniards, and Italians. Anecdotal? Sure. Interesting nonetheless.

And as for rates of virginity, here is what the Catholic ideal is:
religious (nuns, priests, etc) lifetime sexual partners = .2
[includes some widows and widowers]
single people lifetime sexual partners = 0
married people = 1.2
{includes widows and widowers, some of whom remarry]

Julian O'Dea said...

I have said that I have no problem with women in the workforce. My point nevertheless seems to be undisputed, that women do not want to work in the same way as men.

The anecdotes here sound like women start out with big ideas and go a bit smaller and others go the other way.

A survey of Australian women found, not long back, that wives want fulltime work - for their husbands.

I am not disputing that being a SAHM could be stressful for some women.

But this discussion reminds me of a review comment when Margaret Mead's book on Sex and Temperament first came out, to the effect that among all her findings, she had not however found a tribe where men have the babies.

My other issue is the hype. Not long ago there was an article in the Australian press lamenting the fact that the percentage of women in full time employment had not risen since the 1960s. Most of the increase has been in part time work, and most women remain, as the article noted, dependent to some extent on their husbands or on government welfare.

Steve Moxon has noted similar points for the UK.

As for back to the kitchen, no not as if that was all they do, but in a sense they never left. Again, domestic surveys show that it is mostly women cooking the family meals.

As for Trads and the hedonic, I would say a couple of things. Trads are not the weirdos of popular imagination. When I first met them I expected a lot of strange Jansenist types, but they were anything but. The main thing they were was academically smart. There were a few people who still seemed to be living in the age of Pius IX, but they were very much in the minority.

I agree with you about the angelism and gnosticism that seems to be infecting the Church lately, and I have commented on this elsewhere. But a lot of "no nasty patriarchal sex" people are in the mainstream church, not among Trads.

mdavid said...

hedonism is a natural weakness, feminism is an unnatural disease.

This is very, very true. It's why white knight rads who constantly bash PUA (say AD, Zip, SSM) are missing the point about PUAs...who are merely speaking the truth about the current social situation between men and women. Women's, not men's, disordered behavior is the primary issue that needs to be addressed before any solution can be had. And Trads have been seduced by chivalry.

The Social Pathologist said...

@AD

And as for rates of virginity, here is what the Catholic ideal is:...

I've got a good grasp of Catholic conceptions of the context in which legitimate sexual relations have occurred.

But you still haven't answered my question. How does Christianity view "dorkiness"? It's a serious question. Can a man be masculine and a dork? If not, what is the deficiency?

@Julian

But a lot of "no nasty patriarchal sex" people are in the mainstream church, not among Trads.

You miss my point. The point is not that the Trads don't like sex, but rather, they are hostile to the notion of sexual pleasure being a primary motive.

As for women, yeah, I agree that they are not men. As I said before, I agree that the majoirty of women want to be at home still there is a significant minority who don't and any conception of society needs to cater for this group.

The problem with women is that they are herd animals and don't like being on the outer. Thats why the trad women like to paint the career women as selfish bitches and the carrer women like to paint the trad women as Stepford wives. The ones pushing the full employment model are the feminist tribe. Women in the middle feel pressure from both groups (remember, they don't think like men). Paradoxically it may require a relaxed patriarchy that stops women from sniping at each other.




MarcusD said...

Here's a good battleground: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554


I can't help but notice the arguments being made reflect poorly on what is being argued for.

dropit said...

Re: dorkiness, I tackled this issue a few weeks ago. I have a vested interest in figuring this out, because I am a dork. But I think I've nailed it this time. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Marcus D

can't help but notice the arguments being made reflect poorly on what is being argued for.

Usual level of mainstream Catholic debate. Hyperpious vs Radical.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ dropit

Had a look at your post. I think Shenpen was closer to the mark though I think his view has a few faults.

Lacking in qualities which are socially desirable is the mark of a nerd.

In western cultures, intellectualism, on its own is unattractive. A man's got to appeal to a woman's flesh.

mdavid said...


SP, I beg to differ. This is how I put food on my table. It's the great silent epidemic out there. Lot's of women are miserable at home but won't let on less they be thought a poor mother. Ask your wife if she knows any women like this.

This is the standard feminist line, and it gets a lot of play in the media. Betty Friedan wrote a famous book about it for goodness sake, so I don't get the slant that working women get no social support while SAHM are always bashing them. It's the other way around, if anything. Trads merely point out that it's the ideal for a women to SAH.

I agree there is some truth to the claim of women's anguish, just like there is some truth that many men feel trapped by work and marriage.

But: so what? It's simple reality that women who desire work over family formation won't compete genetically with women who stay home and raise children. They may have happier lives (like PUAs, for example) but who cares? Seeking pleasure is not the end game of a successful life. Rather, overcoming challenges, creating life, and passing on your lifestyle to the next generation is. Working women are just like PUA in this regard: they are a dying breed; in fact, they are a good part of why Western Europe was 25% of world population in the 1800's and will soon be below 5%.

Novaseeker said...

Well, beyond the fact that such a world was always an aspiration - women have always worked outside the home (look up what the name 'Brewster' means sometime) - rather than reality the fact remains that among incoming female freshman in colleges in the US 50% state that their ultimate goal is to be a stay at home mother. And 3 years after graduation about 15% of those who, as freshmen, said their ultimate goal was something else change their minds to desiring to be SAHM's.
Or, shorter - even in the West, even in college, about 65% of young women want to be stay at home wives and mothers.
Think about that a minute. Not only does this mean that the idea of women returning to traditional roles is possible it means that more women want it than don't


Eventally, sure. That's not inconsistent with the high university attendance rates and 20s career path. Why? Because these are the venues by which they meet the kind of men whom they want to marry and have the option of being a SAHM with. Marriage is now highly assortative -- not only by physical appearance, but by educational background/heft and early career.

While many people in the manosphere (and elsewhere) sem to think men don't care about this when selecting mates, that's not reflected in whom you see the highly educated and successful men generally marrying -- it's highly assortative by education/career even if the plan is to have wife be a SAHM. It's about a pedigree, about a social/educational class, and, in part, about strong genes for the kids -- and also about having a lot in common and relating to each other.

So, no, it isn't a contradiction at all, really. In many cases, it's precisely the access to meeting and marrying these men, who are selecting wives in this assortative way, that provides these women with the luxury of being able to be a SAHM while still living a comfortable lifestyle.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
You wrote,
"What I find striking about the Trads is their hostility towards the hedonic component"
Is this the non-sequitur I feel it is? The Church teaches that spouses should be at lest nominally attractive to each other; that men and women have a duty to be pleasing toward the other, which includes in word, deed, and apperance; that physical intimacy is actually a debt owed each to the other; that excuses for *not* having sex when asked are actually rare and pretty well-defined; (as we discussed) that the husband has a duty to, unless the wife declines, give his spouse at least one orgasm during each act of intercourse; and more, besides.
I do not see this as,
"...hostility towards the hedonic component [of marriage]"
Far from it, indeed. Do I reject *hedonism* and the impact of immoral actors who seek promiscuity?
Yup.
Let's get this from a personal aspect.
My sons are well-spoken, well-groomed, well-dressed, and polite. They are fit, can dance, know how to engage in small talk, and are comfortable approaching women for a dance, conversation, etc.
In addition to all of these things being good in and of themselves it is also because unless they are called to the vocation of holy orders they will be called tot he vocation of matrimony.
They also know about sex (in an age appropriate way, of course) and the oldest two are very well aware of what I mentioned above, including that sex is meant to be a great deal of fun for husband and wife.
OF COURSE marriage is supposed to be pleasurable. OF COURSE sex is part of marriage. OF COURSE I want my sons and future daughters-in-law to have a great time in the sack. I mean, why wouldn't I?
But just as happiness is NOT the goal of marriage [happiness is a side effect of a good marriage] pleasure is NOT the goal of marriage, it is a side effect of good marriage.
So, to me, a Trad if there ever was one, while I don't focus on the hedonic aspects I don't ignore or reject them, either.
Heck, I hear this in homilies, including a great series from a young FSSP priest on the role of sexual pleasure in the building of the emotional support and kindness between young spouses and another, also from an FSSP priest, on how 'while the wedding day is for the bride and the wedding night is for the groom' the combination of domesticity, children, and sex reflect the roles of agape, caritas, and eros in the world when properly balanced.
Sure, sure - its is personal anecdote vs. personal anecdote, yeah, I know, but I m just trying to point out that this is a complicated, nuanced field with huge variations between people in the same parish. I think the broad statement,
"What I find striking about the Trads is their hostility towards the hedonic component"
is *over* broad and misses some important details.
Yeah, I know fathers that don't want their daughters to know what an orgasm is (mothers, too) and families where they pray that all 7 kids are nuns and priests because the parents can't imgine their kids having sex, but that is far from the whole story and actually conflicts with the true teachings of the Church.
.
I do appreciate your inquiries. You ask great questions and raise important points. Thank you.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
You wrote,
"How does Christianity view "dorkiness"?"
Dorkiness qua dorkiness?
[I couldn't resist the Latin]
Christianity does address basic social skills (don't lie, don't gossip, don't talk to much, don't use foul language) but only as regards to avoiding sin.
I know that the Church teaches that once a young Catholic hits puberty they should attend group events with boys, girls, and adult supervision so that all can learn how to interact with members of the opposite sex; to discover what they, themselves, want in a spouse; and to learn general social skills. That these events will continue after marriage and after births so that married couples can learn from and support each other and that young children build ties of friendship.
That sounds like the ticket, really. The Church is concerned with our salvation and the development of our characters, not our quality of pickup line.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
back to the original post. You write,
"...in the West it is the women who control sexuality".
Huh. For certain values of "women", "the West". "control" and "sexuality" - maybe.
I see and personally experience far too many women coming to me with the mirror image of the complaints of men in the MRA/PUA/manosphere (and even the MGTOW) subcultures to buy this as it is so broadly stated. Even /adv/ has a high number of young women mirroring these complaints ['I can't get a date'; 'I've been friendzoned'; 'I can't get laid'; 'I was a means to an end, nothing more'; 'all the guys want just a small number of girls and I am left out'; 'I can't find a spouse'; 'I'm a good girl but men only want sluts'; etc.]

MarcusD said...

@AD

Well, beyond the fact that such a world was always an aspiration - women have always worked outside the home (look up what the name 'Brewster' means sometime) - rather than reality the fact remains that among incoming female freshman in colleges in the US 50% state that their ultimate goal is to be a stay at home mother. And 3 years after graduation about 15% of those who, as freshmen, said their ultimate goal was something else change their minds to desiring to be SAHM's.
Or, shorter - even in the West, even in college, about 65% of young women want to be stay at home wives and mothers.


Could you share the source of that? Thanks.

The Social Pathologist said...

@mdavid

This is the standard feminist line, and it gets a lot of play in the media.

It's a real mistake to disregard your adversary. Perhaps one of the reasons feminism gained traction in the West is due to the legitimacy of their complaints. They spoke for a rather large section of the community who had legitimate grievances. Seeing that the conservative elements of society had no response to dealing with these legitimate complaints the women had no alternative but to side with the radicals.

I don't get the slant that working women get no social support while SAHM are always bashing them

Both groups are bashing each other. A lot of stay at home mums feel that the lives are worthless after the kids leave home and a lot of working mothers feel that they are selfish because they work. There's a lot of angst out there.

Trads merely point out that it's the ideal for a women to SAH.

It's the ideal for some women, not for all. Women don't seem as malleable as men when it comes to fitting roles to which they are unsuited to. Men and women are not the same.

The Social Pathologist said...

Nova

Good points. Most young women buy into the notion of feminism for a variety of reasons but it is the actual real world experience of it that turns them from it. Most women like being stay at home mothers but there is a large portion of them that don't.

The Trads are like the Feminists in many ways, insisting that women fill one type of role which is in accordance with their own conception of femininity, and are harshly critical of those who disagree. There is no conception of legitimate diversity amongst either group. Compounding this is the error of analogy. i.e. just because men can fill one type of role women should be able to fit into one type of role as well.

that's not reflected in whom you see the highly educated and successful men generally marrying

Intelligence in a woman is attractive but its only part of the package.

Aquinas Dad said...

MarcusD,
That was from the GSS and a Pew study (I will dig it up when I get home from the office).
The London School of Economics confirmed it (I think Dr. Hakim was the lead) and they also found that of working women with children 90% wanted to quit work and be full time SAHMs.
The studfy was prompted because many more women list 'his income' as a key factor in marriage now than in 1940 and the reason was they felt a rich husband was needed to be a SAHW.

MarcusD said...

The studfy was prompted because many more women list 'his income' as a key factor in marriage now than in 1940 and the reason was they felt a rich husband was needed to be a SAHW.

Yes, that was from a Time survey, if I recall correctly.

This, I think: http://christinewhelan.com/wp-content/uploads/Mate-Preferences-Chart.jpg

--

@Julian and AD

If you're interested in writing a collaborative post on the topic, feel free to leave a comment on my blog and we can do that.

The Social Pathologist said...

AD

"What I find striking about the Trads is their hostility towards the hedonic component"
Is this the non-sequitur I feel it is?


Quote from Deus Caritas Est.

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed.

That's Benedict speaking, not me.

This tendency has been a particular problem in the Anglo version of Catholicism but wherever Catholicism has been ascetical it has been a danger.

Sure, sure - its is personal anecdote vs. personal anecdote

We can illustrate points with personal anecdotes but what is the bigger picture. I know that within the whole body of the Church their was a variety of opinion on these matters but what was Church "policy" as set down by the Pope?

It's only once we get to Casti Connubi that the unitive aspect of the martial act is "officially" considered legitimate, some 1900 years after the foundation of Christianity. Even then there were dissenters. Just think about it for a minute. 1900 years to officially declare Eros within marriage a semi legitimate end (subordinate to overriding procreative imperative) and you're telling me that the Church had an objective relationship with it (Eros)?

The Church is concerned with our salvation and the development of our characters, not our quality of pickup line.

Maybe the Church should have been concerned about it and perhaps then the sexual revolution would not have completely sideswiped it.

The rise of Protestantism in Europe owed a lot to the reaction against the abuses occurring within the Church. Abuses which were corrected but well after the horse had bolted.
One way to stop these sorts of things happening in the first place is to deal with them lest others deal with the problem for you.

The Church has no answer for dorkiness because the Church has no philosophy of Eros. It's spent to much time fighting it and not enough time trying to understand it.
To quote Zippy, the attitude of the Church to Eros was "Who cares".

The Social Pathologist said...

Pertinent to Dr Hakim

She is a big proponent of Erotic Capital

Just one of her article.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/have-you-got-erotic-capital/

Novaseeker said...

Intelligence in a woman is attractive but its only part of the package.

Of course, I agree. My point is that people select mates to whom they are attracted from the pool of similarly educated/credentialed people, by and large. The lawyer/secretary, doctor/nurse marriages are not very common now, particularly the higher you go in the credential chain. People still marry people based on overall attraction within that group, but that's the pool they're fishing in for a mate to begin with.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
"That's Benedict speaking, not me"
And? We wrote back and forth about this in an earlier post of yours; yes, there is a back and forth of dualism in the church, as there is in general in most human endeavors, but official Church teachings is pretty consistent - and is not so very anti-flesh.
Like I said before, more than once. Tis is a complicated topic with a lot of moving parts and many differing opinions. I object to your use of very broad language like "trads are hostile to..."
I'm a trad. I hang out with lots of trads. I speak with many more; while some are hostile to pleasure, most aren't. And the Church's official teachings aren't, either.

"It's only once we get to Casti Connubi that the unitive aspect of the martial act is "officially" considered legitimate"
You mean other than the positive writings of St. Theophilus, Lacantius, Hippolytus, St. John Chrysostom, and the dozens of theologians who wrote books on moral theology that promoted sexual pleasure in marriage as a 'positive good', right? Heck, as I mentioned in another post the conclusion that men in some way 'owed' their wife an orgasm was not only decided in about the 13th Century I find reference to it in manuals for confessors from the 1600's through the 1920's!
So - Other than the fathers of the Church, several saints, manuals for confessors, etc. the Church hadn't mentioned it much....
Well, other than in the catechism.

MarcusD said...

We know where part of the problem lies: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11691329&postcount=110

(thread http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=858554)

Julian O'Dea said...

I am not a systematic thinker and I have not read every comment here, but I thought I would throw in a few points, into the pot so to speak.

(What do you suggest we collaborate on, SP?)

First I want to stress one point I made above. The growth in women in the workforce, in Australia at least, seems to be in part-time work, not full-time. That statistic about no more women being full-time in the workforce than fifty years ago really should be digested. As far as I know, it is basically true.

That in itself should make an analytical person wonder whether the conventional wisdom about massive social change has been overestimated.

I have also referred to a domestic activity survey, conducted by the Australian Government statistics people I believe, quite recently, that showed - to use the jargon - that housework is still strongly gendered.

Feminism has always had an enormous amount of free publicity and support from the media. Especially the elite media. The day I wake up and hear a non-feminist program on the ABC will be the day I start searching the sky for portents of the apocalypse.

In many ways it has long been like the media fagnagging (new word I invented this morning) we are currently being exposed to. It is All Gay, All the Time. Half the coverage of the Russian winter games has been about "homophobia". The American government now pours resources into promoting gay rights worldwide.

Our local paper, the Canberra Times, was fully on board for gay marriage, with its pom-poms out all the way, even raising a cheer for how wonderful it had all been when the ACT's gay marriage laws were struck down federally.

Gay is the new feminism. Once the media got behind feminism, it literally couldn't lose. Even when it lost, it was still reported to have won. There are still many, many Australian women who think that Julia Gillard was a leader of genius, a Superwoman, only destroyed by the misogyny kryptonite deployed by Tony Abbott and the evil patriarchy.





Julian O'Dea said...

Thanks, AD. I had my doubts that the Augustinian strain in relation to sex was the only one. The Catholic Church has such a long, complex, rich history that one could find nearly anything if one looked.

I complained about angelism and gnosticism. Some of the statements of the most recent popes have been remarkably unsexy. John Paul II, who really had no clue, said that men should not "lust after" their wives. Or at least so I am told. If that isn't the most absurd and unworldly remark, right up there with anything from the supposedly benighted Olden Days, then what is?

The only other theologian of note to hold that view, about lusting after one's wife, is Ned Flanders.

Julian O'Dea said...

Sorry, I now notice that it was MD who was interested in a collaborative article, not SP.

Novaseeker said...

An interesting and relevant post here, I think: http://anarchopapist.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-potential-of-christianized-game/

MarcusD said...

SP is more than welcome to join in, either for or against the thesis.




(I'll see if I have a non-banned account with which to contact 57thD on CAF to see if they want to join, too.)

The Social Pathologist said...

@AD

So - Other than the fathers of the Church, several saints, manuals for confessors, etc. the Church hadn't mentioned it much....
Well, other than in the catechism.


So, in other words, what you're saying is that Benedict was wrong in his encyclical.

Look, policy discussion documents are different to official policy. I grasp that fact. I understand that there were many theologians and saints who took a more liberal view on the matter. But the teaching that made its way to the people was decidedly anti-carnal. Casti Connubii was a revolutionary document of the Church. Too bad it took 1900 years.

Back to work again.


Julian O'Dea said...

It is certainly possible for a pope to be wrong in an encyclical. Even on teaching. Popes do err, unless they are speaking ex cathedra or repeating settled and traditional teaching.

And they can certainly err on supporting facts.

Also doctors of the church are important in themselves. If St John Chrysostom did write in favour of sexual pleasure in marriage, that is very significant.

These issues are incredibly complex. A lot of ideas gained common currency without being officially taught.

I doubt that Casti Connubii was quite so revolutionary.

In any case, as Vatican II reminded us, we have a right to our own conscientious views on many matters. A variety of opinion is almost always available. Many people who pronounce on these things, from layman to pope, are wont to presume that they are speaking as if ex cathedra. In almost every case, they are only giving a private opinion.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Marcus D

Thanks for the offer, but I think I'm the cat amongst the pigeons and I would probably stymie your project. Thanks and best wishes.

@Julian

These issues are incredibly complex. A lot of ideas gained common currency without being officially taught.

Agreed. You're right, given the wide nature of Catholic culture, one can find anything one wants but the issue here what was the "official party line" and until recently it was decidedly hostile to the pleasure (punitive aspect) of it. Castii was revolutionary since the unitive aspect was declared legitimate. (provided the procreative was not frustrated).

I think that many people would view HV as more than a private opinion.

I remember reading Noonan's Contraception, and whilst a study of the Church's teaching on sexuality was not the main emphasis of his book, given the nature of his subject he was bound to give it some consideration. Noonan earned wide acclaim as a truthful historian even though, I feel, his arguments at the end of the book were weak. Still my impression from reading this book was that the erotic component of sex was tolerated insofar as it facilitated offspring otherwise it was very negatively viewed from an institutional perspective.

BTW, It's interesting how we differ with regard to the implications of Dr Hakim's work. I'm not being snarky here but it appears to me that you guys are happy to take all women out of the workforce on the notion the the majority of the women want to stay at home.

Why aren't you open to a model that lets the women who want to stay at home stay at home and those who want to work, work?

Honest question.

The Social Pathologist said...

(punitive) in the above quote should be unitive.

Julian O'Dea said...

HV was probably infallible, since it restated traditional teaching.

I have no objection to women working or not, married or not. My main point is that most women, given the choice, work part-time when they are mothers.

If I were being snarky I would note that men are just expected to be breadwinners. We don't get a choice.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
You wrote,
"So, in other words, what you're saying is that Benedict was wrong in his encyclical."
*sigh*
No, not at all. *As we have previously discussed on your very blog* Benedict's statement that those tendencies have always existed is obvious. BUT they haven't existed in a vacuum nor have they been unopposed and *that* is also obvious.
My response was to your claim,
"It's only once we get to Casti Connubi that the unitive aspect of the martial act is "officially" considered legitimate"
That is not the case and my examples were geared toward that.
Hence the direct quote.
You wrote,
"But the teaching that made its way to the people was decidedly anti-carnal"
Of course it was! You *do* understand the difference between the theological definition of 'carnal' as opposed to 'pleasurable'? Yeah, a fine point but in matters like these precision is a must. Carnality means a focus on pleasure and an end in and of itself and is incompatible with properly ordered thinking. Properly ordered, pleasure is part of the concept of dual consequences - welcome, ordained, part of God's plan, unitive, and (naturally) pleasurable but not an end.

mdavid said...

mdavid, Trads merely point out that it's the ideal for a women to SAH.

SP response, It's the ideal for some women, not for all. Women don't seem as malleable as men when it comes to fitting roles to which they are unsuited to. Men and women are not the same.

It's the genetic ideal for all women today. Sure, many cannot reach that ideal. Extinction is the norm, not the exception, for all living things.

Many women don't like being SAHM, just like many men are unhappy supporting a brood (PUA). The PUA and the working woman have similar breeding strategies, and both are less fit in this day and age of plentiful resources. Which is why the West is fading to black, and traditional peoples are growing like crazy, filling the gap.

Working women are a genetic product of an era were resources were scarce and working helped one's brood; that era no longer exists. Look at England for an example of what happens genetically when women turn their back on religion and large families (the two correlate strongly). One cannot call slow extinction and replacement (the path of the working woman) "ideal". It's anything but.

Höllenhund said...

Matt Forney was way too impulsive to be a really good blogger, and his blog had marginal impact at best. He never received anywhere near as much public exposure as Roosh or Roissy.

Phone Watch said...

I think this is not the essence of the red pill, it is a peripheral factor. There are plenty of red pill concepts that are good and right, and these should be learned and practiced by Godly men......

Bob Wallace said...

My experience has been the women who least understand men are the sluts, and the men who least understand women are the hardcore PUAs. I wouldn't take the advice of either. Actually, I never have. I've always just sat back and watched them screw up their lives and never said a word.

Anonymous said...

"and the men who least understand women are the hardcore PUAs. I wouldn't take the advice of either. Actually, I never have. I've always just sat back and watched them screw up their lives and never said a word."

Is there anything more funny than a permavirgin loser that considers men getting ample snatch are "messing up" their lives?

Anonymous said...

"It's not "spin" if it accurately describes the decrees of the pope of the manosphere - Roissy - as it does. Game in the alt-right/neoreaction/mano - sphere turns around Roissy's blog and it's proclamations. If you want to redefine game to mean chopping wood in the backyard and growing a beard, or some other back-to-the-old-ways fantasy, fine. If you want to harken back to what the Bible told you you should be, fine again. But don't call it game. Game is about creating a false impressions for the purpose of seducing women, which is something that if Christ had bothered to opine on, he would have condemned.

If you want to take game and strip it of all the duplicity, cunning, falsity and questionable behavior but keep the lofty principles like leadership, athleticism, assertiveness, traditional masculine bearing, etc, etc, that's ok too, but then why do you insist on calling it game? It clearly has nothing to do with Roissy game, which is focused on using duplicity and cunning to seduce sluts into fornication. There is a very good reason why "trad" types instinctively recoil at that type of game, which glossing over like SP is doing here, doesn't help."

People like you really deserve to be gas chambered.

"Waaaaaah, he doesn't act like a boring, about-to-be-divorce raped provider chump :'("

Listen faggot: Game isn't about deciving people. It is about changing your personality in a manner that makes women want to fuck you. If you even had the sack to go out and use game, you would know.

Trần Văn Quảng said...

Dịch vụ Check domain miễn phí. check domain nhanh chóng chính xác
Dịch vụ Tao web mien phi từ inet cho phép bạn tạo web bán hàng hoàn toàn miễn phí
Tin tức Bóng đá cập nhật 24/7. Nhận định trận đấu, tổng hợp kết quả các trận đấu bóng đá
CHuyên trang Tin tức cập nhật nhanh nhất chính xác nhất các tin tức nóng hổi
Cổng Tin tức online cập nhật tin tức trong và ngoài nước nhanh nhất, chính xác nhất
Cổng Tin tức trực tuyến cung cấp thông tin đời sống xã hội, tin tức tổng hợp
Blog Kiến thức seo cung cấp kiến thức seo căn bản cho người mới học seo
Blog Hướng dẫn SEO hướng dẫn học và làm seo