For those of you who have missed it, heretic Dalrock has trained his gimlet eye upon the Trad-Papist, Darwin Catholic. The brouhaha started when Mrs. DC discovered the no-holds-barred discussion nature of the manosphere; Dalrock launched his first salvo with Rules of the Road for Fornication, yet another takedown of the effort to make carousel-riding (or carousel watching) safe for women. She bleated and would not engage, but Mr. Darwin Catholic did, as Dalrock noted here. DC’s response talked about finding a “nice girl” to marry (one wonders if he’d read Roissy on this topic), and is well worth a read. DC’s advice, however, seemed overly simplistic, along the lines of George’s complaint in Seinfeld when Jerry asks him to teach him to lie to beat the lie detector: “You can’t just go up to Pavorotti and ask: ‘Teach me to sing like you.’” Dalrock’s response was to call DC the Alfred E. Neuman of TradCons, with “What, me Worry?” All the articles make for great reading, as two pro-marriage advocates of considerable intelligence square off. I think that Dalrock got the better of it; DC did not let my comment out of moderation on his post, while Dalrock allowed open discussion that he, and several commenters, owned.
We, the Papists at Patriactionary, now take up the cudgel in support of Mr. DC. Sir, you hit the jackpot. No, not just in marrying young to another chaste person, raising five arrows in your quiverfull, or being blessed to live in a like-minded community. You did not mention attending traditional Latin mass, but most of your life meets my prescription for success in “At an Orthodox Jewish Wedding.” Specifically, my lessons or suggestions to build a functioning society included:
Religions whose ceremonies are entirely or mostly in the vernacular cannot in form display the mystery that religions that use obscure, dead languages can. It cannot be coincidental that growing faiths, like Islam, Traditionalist Catholicism, the Amish, and the Orthodox Jews, rely so heavily on mysterious and reverence-inducing languages, at odds with the modern vernacular.
Beta men can win women of higher SMV by banding together to exclude interlopers who might try to game the sexual marketplace so as to monopolize a young woman’s most attractive years between 18 and 24.
The religious community must maintain a strong community life apart from the mainstream society, so strong that threatening to be expelled from that society constrains the behavior of women and men. Orthodox Judaism permits secular divorce, but, like Catholicism, holds back one stricture: a divorced spouse does not have to grant a “get,” (similar to a Catholic annulment) permitting the other spouse to marry again in the Orthodox faith.
Marriages must be seen as the bringing together of two families, not two people. Grooms must seek approval from brides’ fathers, and fathers must protect the chastity of their daughters. My friend’s daughter could honestly wear white at her wedding.
Marriage must be in accord with man’s biological nature. Female fertility is at a peak plateau from 18 to 24, and declines inexorably thereafter. Encouraging women to use that time to pursue careers or graduate school means that their chances of bearing healthy children will be lower, forever. (Sorry, Mrs. DC; that’s the truth)
Most importantly, the future belongs to those who show up for it, and that means religions that can reproduce themselves by having a greater-than-replacement-rate fertility, and holding on to members. The Orthodox do this well, perhaps because they know that the lower the number of sex partners a woman has (barring 0, of course), the higher the number of children she bears. To whit: “Not only do the Orthodox suffer many fewer losses from intermarriage, but their fertility rate is far above the Jewish norm. As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3 children in “modern Orthodox” families to 6.6 in Haredi or “ultra-Orthodox” families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim.” Christianity did not conquer the Roman empire with the sword, but with higher fertility rates, not being focused on material aspects and the “doubtful doom of mankind.”
Mr. DC grew up with this knowledge, even if it is “muscle memory,” and not something he can explicitly state. But when I say that he hit the jackpot, getting called out by Dalrock is also what I meant: how else to drive traffic to the site with the message about what is a splinter-size sect of the Church of Rome? So, take our advice, sir: read everything, especially the comments, and use it to build a more secure and growing community. I have taken the liberty of excerpting some of the best for you, with headings.
On the advisability of separatism
Mule Chewing Briars writes “Lots of dickswinging talk here – but really, what are the options for men?
1) DC’s solution – dive into a subculture that upholds patriarchy. Yeah. I already know one priest who had to leave the priesthood because his wife was unhaaaapy. It may work. It may not.
2) Join Roissy at poolside. The drinks are ready. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Not an option for anyone with a soul. Enjoy your life. Keep the penicillin nearby.
3) GYOW – No intimacy, ever. Kind of radical, but the number of men who did this in the first Christian centuries eventually brought Rome to heel. However, something tells me that the majority of MRAs would make piss-poor monks.
4) PUA-lite “game-your-wifers” see #1 above. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. Depends on the level of pimp hand you were dealt on how hard it will be for you to maintain. It would be exhausting for me.
5) Stormfront type shit. Badassery in the woods and the mountains. A wet dream for all but about 99.98% of men. Once they start rappelling out of the assault helicopters…
6) Work within the system. That takes time and organization. An Emily’s List for men? I could see it. We would need to start electing people at the local level first, and would have a hell of an uphill battle against the DV state and the feminized media gestalt.
The more I think about it, the more DC’s “solution” seems to be pretty feasible. Knotty, fussy, religion-level-dedicated face-time-sized communities will probably be the most likely to survive the coming shitstorm.”
Several commenters noted that the larger society posed a threat, even so, but the number agreeing with DC’s basic strategy was large.
Chris writes: “The problem is that the secular divorce laws actively undermine the rules of his (separatist) Catholic world — or the Amish, for that matter. The only way the community can function is to shun those who do not play by the rules.
This is moving from the theological position of universality (what ‘catholic’ means) to a functional counter cultural cult. Like the closed Brethren, Hutterites, etc.
What most of you forget is this strategy (works) . Not for society in general, but for those who are in the group. It as worked for the Anabaptists for 400 years. But it will not preserve a society who sees the Amish as quaint, part of a tourist trail, and cathedrals as tourist destinations.”
The Intrusion of Society
Many commenters objected that you might not be interested in modernity, but modernity is interested in you. A succinct atheistic comment:
PhiladelphiaLawyer writes:
“(2) You, Mr. Trad Con, are living in a Fool’s Paradise. At any moment, the dam may break and little, loyal Mrs. Trad Con just might let the flood tide of feminism and the simple reality of the law break through into her perfect little Mrs. Trad Con heart. And, when she does, it’s EPL time for you, Mr. Trad Con. Divorce papers. BS accusations of “abuse” (which, by the way, your Trad Con lifestyle and beliefs will only [confirm] in the mind and heart of the judge). Loss of child custody. Kicked out of your (own) house. Alimony. Child Support. “Setttlments.” Attorneys’ fees (yours and hers). Enjoy!”
Some suggested that your seeming obliviousness was a defense mechanism, and that you did in fact know the problems in the society at large:
Paul writes: “I wonder if sometimes the ignorance generally displayed by white knighting guys who have married well (good on them, I hope to be doing the same) isn’t really purposeful, a form of denial as psychological defense. Let us take the current subject at hand, Mr. Darwin, as an example. I went to a Catholic college, my friends were traditional, some Opus Dei, I have some idea where he’s coming from.
The facts about marriage 2.0 are pretty much self-evident and self-explanatory, you really have to choose to not get them. However, think of the consequences to someone such as Mr. Darwin of accepting them. Specifically, every married man in the U.S. and the West pretty much is entirely at the mercy of his wife, who has the entire legal and political establishment behind her. Period. Full stop. That’s quite the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head, and as we’ve all seen from personal example and in the overall statistics, there is no proof against that, not religion, not social class, nothing. Unhappiness sets in and you’re done like dinner, and you can’t do a darn thing about it.
Now this is bad enough for any guy, but imagine the fellow like Mr. Darwin, who is not only Catholic, but he means it, takes it seriously. On the one hand, to follow his religious teachings is very counter-cultural (i.e. to lead, be head of the house, etc.) and can get you arrested on a whim of Mrs. Darwin (not that I’m casting aspersions on her character, just saying that it is a simple fact that one phone call from her destroys his carefully constructed and sheltered world). Equally, should she end the marriage frivolously (which could happen at will, for any or no reason), there are obviously very troubling implications for him theologically, which should she leave obviously wouldn’t be bothering her anywhere near as much. Or, to sum up, he has a lot further to fall and is in for a much rougher landing should that come to pass.
Not only that, but he, called to be the leader, patriarch, etc., by teaching, wouldn’t be able to. His Church, either his Church or the Church as an entity, can’t do anything about it. In fact the Catholic Church is if anything tacitly supporting her frivolous divorce, regardless of whatever his local Catholic community might think or do. And of course if Mrs. Darwin were to simply decide to leave their community as well as the marriage, anything his very traditional community might do becomes a moot point.”
Could Pre-Nups help?
TFH proposed that a pre-nuptial agreement might help. But that cannot work with a Trad Catholic, as that shows a plan for divorce. You wrote this, as did wise man of the manosphere, Novaseeker. But Brent lays out the ancient case.
Brent writes: “With pre-nups, the woman wouldn’t be entitled to any support if she was unfaithful. This is another way in which pre-nups were designed to strengthen, not weaken, the marriage. They dis-incentivized female infidelity. They disincentivized male infidelity by requiring him to pay her money in the case of his infidelity. This stood as a check on the sinful flesh.
It is for this reason that within Orthodox Judaism, ever since the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish pre-nup, or Katubah, has been a requirement for Orthodox Jewish marriage… In the patriarchal ancient world, the tables were flipped, and consequently pre-nups were used to check male frivolous divorce. The tendency was still to give custody to the woman, intending this to stand as another check on male frivolous divorce.
In today’s society, the tables are flipped. A woman can frivolously divorce a man, for no reason. And overwhelmingly most divorces are filed by women, and the large majority of the time male infidelity is not a reason given in surveys. Once she divorces her man, even if she is the one in the wrong, he may be forced by a judge, at the judge’s whim, to give her huge sums of money, even if she has the capability of providing comfortably for her own basic needs. If her income is a comfortable $50K, and his is $100K, he has to make up the difference under the asinine legal principle that “standard of living” shouldn’t change because of a divorce. This is absurd on its face.
Add to this the tendency for courts to almost always award child custody to the woman, even if there is good evidence she might not be as good a parent as the man, and the tendency for courts to reflexively and unthinkingly give the woman the primary residence (thankfully, my ex-wife didn’t want mine, because it was too far from her work). You have a recipe for a woman’s sinful nature to be tempted to frivolously divorce a man just so she can get cash and prizes.”
On pre-nups, Novaseeker also weighed in.
Brendan writes: “Doubtful, because he’s handcuffed as a Catholic to a canon law system which provides that anything like that basically is an indicator that one had a faulty intention when entering into the marriage (and therefore the marriage may be annulled). I suspect that the “answer” he has is what he has stated above: follow “Catholic truth” and find someone else who does so as well, and do your best.
As I note above, this isn’t really a solution for the masses, even the masses of most Catholics. It’s in many ways a regurgitation of the old “you’re just going after/marrying the wrong women” or “you just don’t have the right attitude” and so on. It’s not useful in the context of an overarching legal and social system which applies to you regardless of your religious beliefs, affiliations and other attitudes.
And, in many ways, it’s a reflection of just how ultimately useless traditionalists are when it comes to these kinds of issues. They refuse to address things on a systemic level, generally, to any meaningful degree beyond wedge issues like abortion. They shame individual decision-making which constitutes a rational response to the realities of the current system, and instead make appeals to ideals, ideologies and beliefs that are all subject to the current system, no matter what they are, and so which can actually set one up for catastrophic failure. And the more of a personal bubble they live in, the worse their advice actually is.”
The Source of the problem: Women, the Serpent’s Target
Joe Sheehy writes: “Many people suggest the psychology of women remains constant, but I’m convinced it’s been changing. Their behavior has been changing, and this is a result of a changed psychology, it’s not just a matter of physical limitations on promiscuity being removed. I believe this firmly because I have spoken to career women from the Muslim world, about my age. Their psychology is a great deal different than western women the same age. They are just a lot more like my mother in their personalities than modern western women. There’s a lot of brainwashing going on, and while it’s tapping into the natural desires of women, it’s amplifying them and distorting them as well. It’s also poisoning them against their better instincts.”
What is to be done?
The important issues were framed by several commenters. I quote again the words of Brendan: “in many ways, it’s a reflection of just how ultimately useless traditionalists are when it comes to these kinds of issues. They refuse to address things on a systemic level.” We at Patriactionary agree: we must have a systemic approach. Your community is a good first step, Mr. DC, recalling the effort of the Church to save what could be saved of civilization in the West as Rome collapsed. But if it is to survive, and grow, and become again the mainstream of the West, it will need some help. Over the coming weeks, I will review the problems, and propose some solutions.
One issue is outlined below:
I Art Laughing writes: “Do you have any thoughts on how to (disincentivize) women from divorcing using the “no fault” system to steal the marital assets from the marriage? Something that might actually represent a penalty to a wife’s bad behavior should she become dissatisfied in a marriage? Any ideas for taking the detonator that society has handed them away?”
My simple, short answer: change no-fault divorce laws so that the person filing is not entitled to custody, alimony, or child support. If any of those are desired, then the filing MUST be a fault filing.
My simple, long answer: the divorce laws are an outgrowth of Cultural Marxism. They will not be cured by anything less than a case of full-blown socialism, in alignment with what the Church provided during the glorious High Middle Ages, before the “Reformation” gave the politicians a chance to seize the 1/5 to 1/3 of Europe owned by the Church. We will visit this them over coming weeks, with articles I dread to write. Please stop by and let us know where we are off track with the enclave mentality.
Patriactionary 
Will S.
April 10, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Great essay, EA! I look forward to the follow-ups, with your proposed solutions fleshed out in more detail.
I have a piece coming up soon, about a Reformed patriarch who, in his own way, tried to more or less secede from our society with his extended family, but society kept intruding upon him, forcing him to act, as he saw fit, to defend what was his.
7man
April 10, 2012 at 10:17 pm
“We, the Papists at Patriactionary, now take up the cudgel in support of Mr. DC.”.
Although I am Catholic, you don’t speak for me. I disagree with DC, so by your associsation with him and his lack of care for other men, women and children, I therefore also disagree with you.
“Sir, you hit the jackpot.”
I have no idea whether this is true or not, given the lack of evidence.
electricangel1978
April 10, 2012 at 10:41 pm
@Will,
Wagner wrote that writing Die Walkure made him physically ill. Essays in the series that I have planned include “The necessity of social welfare” and “The necessity of feminism.” The former will kill me to write, and the latter might get my man card called in. But give me the rope with which to hang myself, Will; unlike Wagner, I won’t ask you to accept incest, adultery, and white-knighting as just, but I will come close.
I look forward to the tale of the Reformer, Will.
electricangel1978
April 10, 2012 at 10:52 pm
@7Man,
We are not democrats, here, so we revere kingship and monarchy. I arrogated to myself the right to use the “royal we.” I don’t expect you to support his snide derogation of men who have had trouble finding a wife, or his lack of interest in helping others. He does strike me something like those people who were “born on third base, and think they hit a triple.”
But the fact remains: secession, or separatism, is the only path (I have not hid my support for that approach.). As I read once on a Papist-supported website: we, not being Jesus, cannot re-animate a corpse, and this culture is dead. Life proceeds only from life; we need to let the dead bury the dead, and go towards the light.
DC’s enclave is threatened by the larger culture and society (and, frankly, his attitude and obliviousness are a threat to it he doesn’t recognize [and Mrs. DC is out of control and could easily EPL him, too]). But the Amish, and groups like DCs, are the only groups that will survive the cataclysm that is modernity. We need to find a way to preserve his group, and form one of our own. Or we perish, and our way of living dies with us.
katmandutu
April 10, 2012 at 11:07 pm
DC is a good (practicing) Catholic who adheres to the tenets of the faith. He does not in my opinion show a lack of care for other people, or children. From reading what he writes I think he he cares very much.
Young man in his mid to late thirties it would seem with a handful of kids and
a good wife. Leading by example and bringing his children up to love God and to be good people.
He also understands why Jesus associated with outcasts and sinners… Many people don’t seem to understand why and often use that fact to justify hanging out with unsavoury people or for instance reading their often sinful writings, that lead them away from God and to the secular.. (they stop praying and going to Church for instance) We as fallen beings will not be edified by such stuff. If you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas, as the saying goes.
DC says:
“Jesus didn’t spend time only with “outcasts” nor did he spend time with them only because they were outcasts, but he was starkly different from many of the establishment religious authorities in that he saw those who were considered outcasts as being worth taking his message to in the first place. What was radical about his spending time with outcasts was not that he advocated in favor of what made them outcasts (Up with prostitution! Up with tax collecting!) but that he ignored their outcast status and preached to all — the elites, the outcasts, and the in between — considering all people as capable of receiving his message and being saved through his sacrifice.
This is why a focus on “Jesus spent time with outcasts” can end up leading one astray. Jesus didn’t come to pick out a group of “good people” or even “interesting people to hang out with” on the basis of their being outcasts. Rather, Jesus came to present a message. He presented it to everyone, outcast or not, and he challenged everyone: Come and follow me. ”
Unfortunately many are not following Christ today, and are dancing to the beat of a different drum. Usually their own.
Will S.
April 10, 2012 at 11:27 pm
I like that quote from DC, Kathy. The socialist mainline types would have us believe that Christ singled out outcasts as more worthy of salvation than others, yet look what a mixed bag outcasts themselves were, socio-economically speaking, from poor and lepers, to rich tax-collectors; by no means monolithic. Just goes to show, Christ has drawn all different kinds of men and women unto Himself, of all different stations.
Svar
April 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm
An excellent article; I look forward to the rest of the series. Look, ultimately, we Catholics have no choice but to choose wisely when it comes to our future wives. That’s the first and most important step. Either that or the priesthood or celibacy.
DarwinCatholic’s strategy is a very good one and yes, it’s not fool-proof, but what strategy is? It seems that most of these men want 100% guarantees but that’ll never happen.
Look. We can’t fight Leviathan. No amount of blogging is going to take the Beast down. We can, however, starve it. I got that from Dr. Cylde Wilson, contributer of Chronicles. And he’s right. How is any of this going to stop No-Fault Divorce? We can’t stop the unjust wars, the abortions, the immigration issues, or the homosexual agenda either. We just can not fight Leviathan.
The best strategy in this climate is to find a decent Catholic girl who shares your values and who finds you attractive(and vice-versa) and have a bunch of kids and raise them right. Yes, there likelihood of divorce, but there is also a good likelihood of getting cancer or heart disease from alcohol, red meat, and tobacco. Not going stop doing those things either(except for tobacco; I’ve been off for so long that there’s no point in restarting).
As a Papist at Patriactionary, I back DarwinCatholic. Obviously, he’s not as trad-con as you, me, or the men at Chronicles and has a tinge of feminism in his views but that doesn’t mean he’s irredeemable. We must not try to alienate those who would make our best allies. Obviously, he is a better one than nihilistic-hedonists, atheistic-materialists, neo-pagans, or Muslims. He’s one of our own.
Dalrock
April 11, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thanks for the linkage and the kind words.
This is very true. When I last checked he had sent a total of around 25 hits to my site over the better part of a week and I had sent over a thousand hits his way. I suspect that part of this reflected a difference in the curiosity level of each site’s readers and interest in seeing the full argument presented by the other side, but I also suspect his site doesn’t generate nearly as much traffic. Either way, debate is a good thing; either we prove that our arguments are strong or we learn something new. There really is no way to lose in that kind of exchange. As you said DC is a man of considerable intelligence, even though I believe him to be in error. I don’t mind having sent the traffic his way. If any of my readers find his site of value I see no reason why they shouldn’t continue reading him. I noticed that Chris added DC to his blogroll so at least one member of the manosphere finds value there.
[thanks for the gentle correction, Dalrock. I do hope DC someday comes to see the blunt truth and numbers you present as the weapons that arm his arguments. I am a man of considerable intelligence and a very high level of education, but you would easily rank amongst my top5 teachers. On behalf of all the children who will grow up with a father in their lives through your agency,thank you.]
One part I would correct per my exchange with DC is he and not his wife wrote the original post against me and the manosphere. This was confusing because he referenced himself in the third person as the man of the house in a way which made it seem like his wife was writing.
empathologicalism
April 11, 2012 at 6:39 am
Ive suggested insta-consequences for the filer of divorce for years. It may differ in the margins as to exactly what they are, but it would make massive change happen. The proven state of the female mind upon filing divorce is , life same minus the jerk. That is reinforced day one when he is out and a visitor to his home and kids. For a few months, he is under the generous “temporary orders” and she can yank his chain with a legal letter here and there. If she had to move out she would see consequence immediately, imagine her lawyer at the first secret visit, yea ok we can file, have you packed the things you’ll need for the next few months? “but but its his fault”…”well did he cheat beat or use drugs?” “nope”….”ok, go pack”
Hmmmm.
Women cannot see the future consequence of the immediate action, substituting in EPL type fantasies or knowing some women who are going through same and they can sit and bask in empathy, its attractive. They then however get very different days before the divorce is final, calling lawyers, stirring drama. They HATE that he is off the hook (a little) and can go his own way and not have to say how high when she says jump.
People wonder why men suggest these little things. Women and white knights say we wish to enslave women so men can misbehave. They have a pat narrative for everything
canecaldo
April 11, 2012 at 8:45 am
A platoon or support group of like-minded people is imperative, but the question is how to keep the integrity of the platoon. This isn’t hard to figure out, it’s just hard to follow-through on because the flesh is weak.
For the RC/Anglican crowd: stop giving the sacraments to those living in sin, and stop hanging out with them. (I don’t know how the eucharist works in GO/RO churches.) Fathers need to start being nosy unto “harassment” (personal space does not exist for anyone in the Caldo household–not even on the Web), and stop paying for the weddings of wayward daughters. Ill-behaved sons are shown the door; as God did Adam.
[This sounds harsh, but is the correct strategy. There was a seminal article I read a while back that discussed what form religion would take in the future. Either it would be loosey-goosey, big tent, or it would be ridiculously strict, like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, or Trad Catholics. Middling religions would suffer denominational loss, as the middling restrictions would drive away the lax believers, but not give enough raw meat to the believers. The author specifically mentioned Cathplicism as a religion in the middle. I think B16 has internalized this logic, and will start to get stricter, with a stronger but smaller church.]
But you have to do this as a group. No Friend-ing outcasts on Facebook to keep up. No occassional “how you doing?” texts.
[Great book on this point, by a pair of atheists, is Willpower. It emphasizes why the “personal relationship with God” types will be much more prone to fall than those in a supportive group.
Expect to be badly treated in return; as Eve bowed to her feelings, and Adam shunted responsibility every which way. Know that their children will suffer. Think about this: God knew Cain would slay Abel in the fallen world. Trust in God’s eternal perspective, and that He will set all to right at the appropriate time.
Before that time, if the wayward should show (that is, demonstrate faithfully) repentance, then by all ways bring them back in; protect them in their time of healing. You can tell because their countenance will have changed, and they won’t demand you recognize their worth, or justify their behavior.
CL
April 11, 2012 at 9:11 am
heretic Dalrock
At least Dalrock doesn’t have his head up his arse.
[he might be a heretic to this RCC member, but I like to think of him as OUR heretic. I do need to avoid the tongue-in-cheek stuff, tho]
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Elspeth
April 11, 2012 at 9:15 am
stop paying for the weddings of wayward daughters.
Keep in Cane mind that the majority of fathers of wayward daughters are so relieved that they’re marrying that it would never occur to them not to pay.
Of course, my daddy didn’t pay for mine. But he showed up for it, LOL.
Elspeth
April 11, 2012 at 9:16 am
Oh, I agree with EA that whatever you think of darwin Catholic, he has at least lives what he professes as far as we can tell.
DarwinCatholic
April 11, 2012 at 9:46 am
Thanks for the link. I’m sorry your comment got eaten (I don’t see it in SPAM and I don’t have moderation on — but for some reason it seems like Blogger’s comments have been flakey lately.)
[It was a comment praising Athol’s “Dominance and Submission in Marriage: the captain and first officer model” which both linked to the post (maybe the problem there) and discussed how TPTB want to obscure the truth. It turns out that if you Google “I want my husband to…” that the top suggestion is no longer “dominate me.” But it was for a couple of weeks after he published that article. some feminist at Google eliminated it; cannot let the truth out.]
A couple brief responses:
– No, I don’t usually attend a TLM, though we are very traditional in our approach to the NO (Latin, chant, etc.), so I realize that calling myself “traditional” is going to create some mistaken impressions in conservative Catholic circles, but I figured that the venue was more general and “traditional” would get the general tenor of things across without getting into too much Catholic inside baseball.
[Ah, not a SSPXer. Ok.]
– I can see why people found some of my comments on divorce and family law pretty off-putting, probably for much the same reason that I find the “if you don’t like abortion, don’t get one” line of argument despicable. I’m not against reforming civil marriage law, I’m just a) fairly pessimistic on our chances given where the culture is at right now and b) not sure I’m entirely satisfied that the situation is exactly as it is generally perceived in the Manosphere, simply as a matter of selection bias (as in, there aren’t a whole lot of women in the manosphere talking about how they got treated unfairly by family courts, so naturally it’s going to sound like men always come out worse.) I’m certainly willing to believe that men often get screwed over by the divorce courts in regards to custody, because men tend to make more than their wives and so are obvious targets for alimony, and society has a lot more romantic notions about motherhood than fatherhood, and so is likely to default assign custody to women. That said, a lot of the problem is, to my mind, hard to solve in that it’s not legal code so much as judicial discression, which is very hard to control/influence. (It’s not as if there are laws saying: “give custody to women”.) And I do personally know of cases that went the other way (Dad’s who filed for no fault divorces, got the kids and got a child support judgement against their ex-wives) so while recognizing that the plural of anecdote is not data, I remain unclear where the dividing line is. My own approach tends to be: Divorce is invariably going to really, really suck and both parties are probably going to think they were treated unfairly, so we’re a lot better off encouraging people to not divorce than trying to make divorce more pleasant or fair.
[What does your group do to keep divorce in house? Do you keep your own courts and discourage people from using a justice system that has gone over to the Lord of this World?]
– Someone in this whole discussion (as Dalrock notes, my blog is typically small, and that works well for me as I’m typically really busy, so I was not able to keep up with all the comments at Dalrock’s place and some of them run together a bit in my mind) described the best approach to having a marriage that lasts as “marry another fanatic” in relation to counter-cultural beliefs about marriage. I think that where I’m in disagreement with a portion of Manosphere guys is that I’d see the “marry a fanatic” rule as being far more predictive of how well your marriage will go than how old your wife is or even what her sexual history before conversion was. I’m glad that I married young and that my wife and I were both virgins when we got married, but I’d rate the chances of a lot of the converts/reverts that I know who are older and have some moderately wild history before coming to the Church as being a lot better than some wishy-washy young couple who basically want to have a good marriage, marry young, etc., but don’t have the fanaticism of having a clear set of beliefs about what marriage is and the willingness to fight to stick to them in the face of a hostile culture.
[Addiction is so hard to overcome because you can literally burn pathways into the brain. the addict does become powerless to fight the addiction on his own. The thrill of a new man and the pleasures of sex, especially with a competent one, will burn a similar pathway into the wiring of a female brain. Now, prayer might help rewrite these pathways; but listen to Gretchen am Spinnrad for the effect that a bad boy can have on a woman.
I think the only way to remove that physical evidence of sin is something along the lines of what the Army does now to treat PTSD. When we recall a memory, we also re-store it, sometimes stronger than it felt at first.What the Army will do is have soldiers recall the horrors while taking a drug that prevents them from recording memories. In this way, the PTSD can be relieved. (the movie Paycheck with Ben Affleck shows another variation on the same theme). repentance heals the breach with God, but it does not undo the physical effects. that is also necessary.]
canecaldo
April 11, 2012 at 9:56 am
“Keep in Cane mind that the majority of fathers of wayward daughters are so relieved that they’re marrying that it would never occur to them not to pay.”
Probably true. Hence: “Adam shunted responsibility every which way.”
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 10:04 am
@ CL
But DarwinCatholic is doing something. He’s being a good Catholic and popping out kids and raising them Catholic. Not everyone has the time for MRM.
[The future belongs to those who show up for it.]
7man
April 11, 2012 at 10:08 am
What will the trad-cons do when the world invades their enclaves?
[In most tales of societies that want to survive for a long time, there is a place of safety, security, that must be preserved. Think of Zion in The Matrix, the Shire in LoTR, or Valhalla in Norse mythology. DC is not helping out in the battle that is taking place near the White City, true, but he is doing something to preserve the Shire. If he won’t fight out there on the front lines, OK, so long as he is not taking shots at the troops that ARE from the safety of the rear. We need the Shire, and he needs people battling to overcome the evil of the age to keep the battle from getting to the Shire.
I would recommend here a read of The Fourth Turning for a sense of the battle. DC wants no part of the larger struggle, but he also wants no part of the glory that accrues to the “hero” generation that struggles with the societal crisis, and builds a new, just society on top of the overturned old order.]
DarwinCatholic and Dietrich Bonhoeffer
CL
April 11, 2012 at 10:13 am
@ Svar
But DarwinCatholic is doing something. He’s being a good Catholic and popping out kids and raising them Catholic. Not everyone has the time for MRM.
While that appears to be true (notwithstanding his feminist wife), it doesn’t preclude his acknowledging the problem in a bigger way than he does – if for no other reason than to save himself, although willingly ignoring injustice to save one’s self (so one hopes) doesn’t seem a very Christian attitude, does it. The world will intrude on him as it has intruded on and all but destroyed the enclave of the family. He seems to think himself immune.
CL
April 11, 2012 at 10:20 am
willingly ignoring injustice to save one’s self (so one hopes) doesn’t seem a very Christian attitude
It’s also unwise.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 10:42 am
If the world invades trad-con enclaves, we’re screwed. Oh well. The Christians in early Rome and the Roman Catholics in Constantinople were screwed. The Catholic Church has completely died out in North Africa. There is always the next life.
[Where, again, is Egypt?]
Look, blogging about no-fault isn’t going to do anything. There are enough people who do that; not everyone has to be on board. We can’t fight Leviathan, the beast will have to die on it’s own.
DC’s strategy is the best and the most productive. So it’s not a guaranteed success. Can you name me one strategy that is?
Look, I could care less about the MRM. I have learned that group is full of individuals that are against my beliefs and values(the Oak incident). I couldn’t give a fuck about what happens to shits like that. So what can I do? I can join groups that do share my beliefs and values like the local Republicans, the Catholic League, or League of the South. Those groups are more likely to actually do something.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 10:45 am
Teaching game, like how EA has done with a group of men, however is helpful. Very helpful.
CL
April 11, 2012 at 10:48 am
@ Svar
I’m not saying everyone needs to do the same thing, but his refusal to see what is right at his own gate is quite astounding. Take up a sword (of one sort of another) or perish – or maybe “take up a sword and perish” but at least die on your feet.
As I just said on the post 7man linked above, different people have different skills and education is an important part of the process. That doesn’t mean DC has to do exactly what others are doing but he does need to realise that his enclave will be attacked. By pointing this out to him, we are fighting for him.
7man
April 11, 2012 at 10:52 am
@Svar
“If the world invades trad-con enclaves, we’re screwed. Oh well.”
So we are screwed then.
“Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die.”
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 10:55 am
“Look, I could care less about the MRM. I have learned that group is full of individuals that are against my beliefs and values(the Oak incident). I couldn’t give a fuck about what happens to shits like that. So what can I do? I can join groups that do share my beliefs and values like the local Republicans, the Catholic League, or League of the South. Those groups are more likely to actually do something.”
Exactly Svar! Well said!
For some strange reason there are a few people out there sitting on their arse’s blogging , thinking that they are making some sort of a difference.. Deluded individuals.
Cl and 7 man on the other hand are right out there helping others and making a difference. They are just not sitting on their backsides , analyzing and finding fault .No siree! 😉
“although willingly ignoring injustice to save one’s self (so one hopes) doesn’t seem a very Christian attitude”
Nor does willingly ignoring God’s COMMANDMENTS and not going to Mass every Sunday.
Pot? Kettle ? Ring a bell.
,
CL
April 11, 2012 at 11:07 am
@ Kathy
What are you doing exactly, aside from making snide remarks like this one directed at me for the fact that months ago I said I hadn’t been to Mass? How about you take a look at the beam in your own eye? You are attacking those who write and don’t “do something”, which is what you are “doing”.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 11:07 am
Oh another thing, since I am a huge fan of the Rockford Institute(the institute that is behind Chronicles magazine), and because I would like to see the men of Chronicles keep doing there thing and realizing that I was a cheap bastard(thanks to their constant nagging: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/04/10/how-not-to-write-a-direct-mail-package-or-their-mistake-is-your-gain/), I decided to suscribe and support this group. The Rockford Institute is another organization more valuable to Our Cause than the MRM.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 11:10 am
Oh no, don’t be judgemental, Kathy! It’s not like a coupla commenters here have ever been too quick to judge.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 11:11 am
“So we are screwed then.”
Perhaps-in this life. But hopefully, not in the next.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 11:26 am
What are you doing to help others CL???. You criticize DC. What are you doing apart from talk talk talk talking?
[Um, aren’t both of you mothers? Is there ANYTHING ELSE the two of you could do more important than that? Raise the next generation to be righteous, and all that. just a thought.]
.
Be interested to know, Talk’s cheap.
. I look after my husband and kids.
Help out in the business. Am an advocate for autistic kids trying to secure more government funding for kids on the spectrum (I have as you know an autistic son)
I pray… For you and your girls and 7 man too. Still.. Hard to believe? When is the last time that you prayed for me.?
I Attend Mass every Sunday. It’s a sin not to go to Mass on Sunday.. Okay I am not perfect either, AS YOU WELL KNOW, but I do know that it is a mortal sin not to go to mass on Sunday. “Can’t be arsed” just don’t cut it CL.
DC IS making a difference, bringing up his 5 kids to love God and be good people.
You should know that all is for naught without God, CL.
Yep I play hardball. And, I don’t let up. Particularly when I care..
CL
April 11, 2012 at 11:32 am
@ Svar & Kathy
Oh no, don’t be judgemental, Kathy! It’s not like a coupla commenters here have ever been too quick to judge.
I could simply say to this, “weak”, because I see what you did there. This thing that is going on here between you and Kathy seems out of place, somehow. I wonder if her husband has seen some of the exchanges that I have seen between the two of you over the past few months and if Kathy has ever asked herself if this is fitting behaviour for a “good Catholic wife”? I do hope she is practicing the faith that she so freely preaches at others.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 11:32 am
*Sigh* Ladies, I really don’t want to have to deal with this.
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 11:36 am
“This thing that is going on here between you and Kathy seems out of place, somehow.”
Interesting. So her cracking a few jokes and saying that she’d like me for her daughter is out of place? I remember cracking a few jokes with you a while back. Was that out of place? You can’t have it both ways.
“I do hope she is practicing the faith that she so freely preaches at others.”
Hope you are too.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 11:39 am
Lol. That’s right CL. off on a tangent try and deflect and discredit.
I have nothing to hide.
You answer my questions and I will quite happily answer yours.
Deal?
7man
April 11, 2012 at 11:41 am
Svar, if you review the comments above, you will find that CL did not start sniping at Kathy. Yet when Kathy took the liberty pass judgment and make snide remarks, CL responded.
If you don’t want to deal with this, you need to take a stand on principle and not provide cover to the woman you favor.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 11:42 am
“If you don’t want to deal with this, you need to take a stand on principle and not provide cover to the woman you favor.”
Lol. Pot and kettle again 😉
Svar
April 11, 2012 at 11:43 am
Yeah, I know Kathy started it. Regardless, I want both CL and Kathy to stop it. Any more comments around these lines will be deleted.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 11:44 am
Come on CL. Can’t you answer my questions. What tangible things are you doing to make a difference?
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 11:53 am
“This thing that is going on here between you and Kathy seems out of place, somehow. I wonder if her husband has seen some of the exchanges that I have seen between the two of you over the past few months and if Kathy has ever asked herself if this is fitting behaviour for a “good Catholic wife”? ”
Okay lets have it? What exchanges.. More hot air.? Ha ha ha.
Pretty low blow. [For some reason, this recalls to me the South Park episode where Cartman’s plan to obtain the list of good-looking boys from the girl who holds it is for Butters to “kick her in the balls.” CL’s landing a low blow ought to have the same effect, no?] You know me very well, and Svar too. You cnnot answer the questions posed so you choose to fight dirty.
Well done.
7man
April 11, 2012 at 11:54 am
@Kathy
“You answer my questions and I will quite happily answer yours.”
Using that order allows you to sit in judgment and there is no basis for CL needing to answer your questions. A passing comment about Mass attendance 6 months ago seems to have been cemented in your mind.
Catholic News Flash: Most people eventually have either a large crisis of faith or a small crisis of faith. Growth occurs from testing. Yet for those that come out the other side, their faith is stronger. You seem to believe in the absence of redemption after testing.
Yet Catholics believe in confession to a priest acting in personae Christi.
Given this basic tenant, why does CL need to confess her sins to Kathy, when she already has done what Catholics are taught to do?
Elspeth
April 11, 2012 at 11:56 am
A catfight? Seriously? After Darwin Catholics insightful comments, I was expecting a higher level of conversation.
LOL.
Patric
April 11, 2012 at 11:59 am
Most fathers are failing to protect the chastity of their daughters, and many fathers are willing to almost pimp out their daughters to a man they think will marry their daughters. Do you guys read PMAFT’s blog? Recently, he told how he went to his “girlfriend’s” parents house over Easter, and his “girlfriend’s” father let PMAFT defile his daughter in his own house!!! He probably would have given PMAFT his wife for a night or two if PMAFT promised to marry his daughter.
Fathers are failing to protect their daughter’s chastity, and they’re acting more like their daughter’s pimp now.
[Shocking link. society’s laws have undercut the father in this essential role; sending 18yo girls to co-Ed colleges hasn’t helped. Sounds lIke a job for…… the Patriactionaries! “You are NOT going out in that, or I will lock you in a basement dungeon if you do.”]
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Please do not whiteknight for Cl 7 man she is quite capable of speaking for herself.
canecaldo
April 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I don’t think Kathy is right to call out CL like that. DC doesn’t need that sort of defense.
OTOH, I can’t remember when I’ve ever seen the Gospel from CL or 7man, but I can’t count the times they’ve written things that transgressed it. I also don’t understand why it’s bad form for Svar to come to Kathy’s defense, but expected that 7man should come to CL’s.
It’s all prideful and unbecoming.
@Elspeth
It’s not the even the first time this week.
7man
April 11, 2012 at 12:17 pm
@Kathy
You see, I have claimed CL and she belongs to me. If you attack her, you attack both of us. By this, I am calmly explaining how things work when a man and a woman are united and there is an attack from an outsider.
I am capable of guiding CL. She counsels and holds me accountable. I lead and hold her accountable. It really is counterproductive for other women to stick their noses into a relationship and waggle their finger, saying “Shame, shame shame” when they do not know of what they speak.
@canecaldo
”I can’t remember when I’ve ever seen the Gospel from CL or 7man, but I can’t count the times they’ve written things that transgressed it”
I don’t think we have transgressed Christian/Catholic/Biblical teaching. If so, please provide citation in brotherly Christian love, since this is a common accusation but no one yet has been able to explain this. Yet it is true that much of what we write is not explicitly based on churchian teaching.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Are you married 7 man. Nope?
Then you and CL are nothing more than good friends.
Please I ask you once again, do not whiteknight. CL is not some little demure wallflower. She is quite vocal in her opinions, is quite intelligent and can speak for herself.
Cat got her tongue.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm
“Yet it is true that much of what we write is not explicitly based on churchian teaching.”
What you write is not at all based on Catholic/ Christian teaching either.
Yet you call yourself a Catholic… Very puzzling indeed.
[Baptism will do that to a gal. Did you know Ronald Reagan was a Catholic? Baptized, and the RCC is the Roach Motel of religions that way: unless excommunicated, you still count. ]
canecaldo
April 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm
It’s a common accusation from Christians–that is, the body of Christ–but you won’t take the correction? Well, there’s one for starters. You’re “churchian” epithet doesn’t dissuade me that you are excluded from the admonishment that we are all to submit, one to another; the special relationship of husbands and wives excluded.
Of which, I gather, you and CL do not partake.
7man
April 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm
@Kathy & canecaldo
Surely you understand that although the Bible contains truth, not all truth is contained in the Bible. Knowledge evolves and as long as it is not contrary to Catholic (and/or Biblical) teaching there is no problem.
Also surely you understand that before marriage a man claims a woman as part of the process. If I remember correctly, Joseph stood by Mary and defended her while they were betrothed.
katmandutu
April 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm
You are not married you are divorced 7 man. You have been quite public about this.
Unless both you and CL obtain annulments then you cannot marry in the Church.
You are free of course to marry in a civil ceremony but it will not be recognized by the Church.
So no, your ‘relationship’ is nothing like Joseph’s and Mary’s at all.
.
Will S.
April 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm
@ Kathy, CL: You both started this, with CL’s unnecessary and uncalled for ‘head up his arse’ comment, and Kathy’s unnecessary and uncalled for swipe at CL and 7man in response. And then, aided by 7man and Svar, as always (yeah, I blame both of you guys, too), it escalated.
Despite the fact that you two dislike each other, I actually like and get along with both of you, and I refuse to take sides in your damn disputes. But I blame both of you for being unable to bite your tongues and be civil. You’re both acting childish, and immature; you’re both responsible for these constant disputes. Seems you and your male allies can’t be on a thread together without this bullshit happening.
But no more; it will stop, now.
And you two will not fight with each other, nor will you fight with either of your opposites’ male allies, or start anything that gets them fighting each other.
Else I will ban both of you two. I’m serious.
No more. I’m counting on both of you – on all of you – to act as the mature adults I know you are and are capable of being.
This bullshit ends, now.
As does this discussion thread. No more comments from the other male Patriactionaries added to this comment either, please. (Sorry about this EA, but it got out of hand; it was necessary.) Thank you.
Will S.
April 11, 2012 at 8:01 pm
I have re-opened comments here, because ElectricAngel would like to respond to some comments; perhaps I should have not closed it, but I wanted to stop the fricking arguing. If it resumes, both women are banned. Simple as that.
Okay, re: the original post, on-topic comments, etc. – resume, as you please. No squabbling. Debating, point, counter-point, without rancor, okay. Good. Cheap shots, nastiness, personal issues, keep out of our blog! Thank you all in advance for your cooperation.
Will S.
April 11, 2012 at 8:06 pm
And in fact, EA has responded already, within comments, so y’all can take a look at what you wrote before, and respond to his comments there as you please.
DarwinCatholic
April 11, 2012 at 11:29 pm
EA,
[It was a comment praising Athol’s “Dominance and Submission in Marriage: the captain and first officer model” which both linked to the post (maybe the problem there) and discussed how TPTB want to obscure the truth. It turns out that if you Google “I want my husband to…” that the top suggestion is no longer “dominate me.” But it was for a couple of weeks after he published that article. some feminist at Google eliminated it; cannot let the truth out.]
Yeah, sorry, it looks like Blogger ate it. I don’t see it anywhere.
[Ah, not a SSPXer. Ok.]
Nope. My preference is for the NO in Latin, but that’s rare as hen’s teeth.
[What does your group do to keep divorce in house? Do you keep your own courts and discourage people from using a justice system that has gone over to the Lord of this World?]
“My group” is probably making things sound a little more formal than the reality, but I would say that the number one thing is simply expectation: There’s a very, very strong expectation within the conservatively-minded Catholic circles that I move in that couples will work out their problems and stay together. It’s not unlike that in some of the immigrant groups that I know at work — my Indian co-workers find getting divorced fairly unimaginable, even though they are not naturalized residents and could get divorced under the same laws as native born Americans.
[Addiction is so hard to overcome because you can literally burn pathways into the brain. the addict does become powerless to fight the addiction on his own. The thrill of a new man and the pleasures of sex, especially with a competent one, will burn a similar pathway into the wiring of a female brain. Now, prayer might help rewrite these pathways; but listen to Gretchen am Spinnrad for the effect that a bad boy can have on a woman.
True, though I know some pretty successfully recovered addicts and alcoholics as well.
Also, part of the my thing here is that people vary a lot. One of my beefs with the “cock carousel” description of a bad past is that it assumes a certain attitude toward that past as being fairly normal. I’ve heard that attitude from female co-workers. The distant smile and the, “Yeah, there were some pretty wild times back then. [sigh] But I’m too old for that now.” That’s very different from the attitude I’ve heard from some women with bad pasts whom I’ve met through Catholic circles, where you might hear something more like “When I think about the way I degraded myself back then… One of the big struggles when I converted was with despair. Whether God could actually forgive someone like me.”
The difference reminds me of something a recovered alcoholic friend told me once, “You can tell the people who are going to relapse because they talk about their time in the bottle and say, ‘Wow, there were good time back then.’ I don’t remember good times. I remember waking up in jail with a hangover.”
I have no idea how people will end up — I’m sure some people who talk a good game may end up falling off the wagon. But overall, I think the beliefs that someone is successfully living according to now (and have been for a while) are probably more predictive of their future than what their actions may have been prior to having those beliefs.
[In most tales of societies that want to survive for a long time, there is a place of safety, security, that must be preserved. Think of Zion in The Matrix, the Shire in LoTR, or Valhalla in Norse mythology. DC is not helping out in the battle that is taking place near the White City, true, but he is doing something to preserve the Shire. If he won’t fight out there on the front lines, OK, so long as he is not taking shots at the troops that ARE from the safety of the rear. We need the Shire, and he needs people battling to overcome the evil of the age to keep the battle from getting to the Shire.
I would recommend here a read of The Fourth Turning for a sense of the battle. DC wants no part of the larger struggle, but he also wants no part of the glory that accrues to the “hero” generation that struggles with the societal crisis, and builds a new, just society on top of the overturned old order.]
Well, and FWIW, part of my thing here is that I don’t foresee a big battle on the Pelennor Fields. I tend to be gradualist — I think we’ll muddle on. The people who are so anti-marriage and so anti-life that they barely reproduce will see their beliefs die out. Those of us who have worldviews that are more sustainable will see our beliefs spread. The societal pendulum will gradually swing in the other direction, and people will take up equal and opposite vices in place of the ones most common today.
Maybe that means I’m sitting out an titanic struggle with Haradrim because that’s not what I’m expecting, but that’s not what I’m betting on.
Matthew
April 12, 2012 at 12:27 am
I read this as another example of a woman trying to play a man. What does she want from you? Moreover, why does she think she can get what she wants by saying this?
Matthew
April 12, 2012 at 12:29 am
And I regard that as the clincher. Feminine repentance doesn’t sound like that.
slumlord
April 12, 2012 at 6:17 am
@DC
That’s very different from the attitude I’ve heard from some women with bad pasts whom I’ve met through Catholic circles, where you might hear something more like “When I think about the way I degraded myself back then… One of the big struggles when I converted was with despair. Whether God could actually forgive someone like me
I think one of the big problems in the Christain manosphere is conflating forgiveness with marriage.
Some think that marrying a woman “with a past” is somehow akin to being forgiving, and hence, Christian. I think this displays confused thinking.
The choice of a marital partner should, at least in part, be based on prudential considerations. Sincerity of heart is but one of the relevant parameters . The old marriage manuals were pretty “hard arsed” in their advice to young people about marital choice. Previous displays of bad character were considered an indicator future troubles. Bad manners, laziness, argumentativeness, etc. were all considered legitimate reasons to by-pass a potential mate; Christian heart or not. [Ouch! I showed all three of those. Perhaps I should have waited until I was no longer lazy or ill mannered before marrying. I don’t think I’ll ever cure the argumentativeness!]
I really don’t want to write any woman off, including “change of heart” carousel riders; some of these will turn out to be good partners. But to push the idea that change of heart uber alles is somewhat naive. All Christians, even very good committed ones, suffer fromt the temptation to sin, and the sins you’re most likely to commit are the ones you’ve done in the past. That’s why previous high frequency fornication is worthy of prudential consideration. [And this is the issue you have done so much to make clear in my mind, SP.]
DarwinCatholic
April 12, 2012 at 9:05 am
Matthew,
I read this as another example of a woman trying to play a man. What does she want from you? Moreover, why does she think she can get what she wants by saying this?
Hmmm. Well, given that the times I’ve heard sentiments along these lines expressed, it’s when I’ve been present during (or heard about after the fact about) conversations between married women and other married women, I’d have to assume that no one was trying to play me, and that that if any playing was going on it wasn’t a man being played.
Keep in mind, I’m not talking about women “with a past” looking for a guy to marry, I’m saying that among the married couples I know, I know some who (like my wife and I) married as virgins, and others who had pasts of one degree or another, and while I don’t think they’d disagree with me that that creates sources of pain and conflict in a marriage that those “without history” aren’t going to have, overall, I’d see people who’ve made that change and have clearly been the change our in a stable marriage for a number of years as being fairly likely to succeed in remaining married compared to a more mainstream couple who may not have any history of premarital promiscuity but don’t have a deep moral commitment to the idea that marriage is permanent and divorce not an option.
And I regard that as the clincher. Feminine repentance doesn’t sound like that.
I guess I’m unclear how one can form that sort of conclusion with surety. It seems unlikely to me that there’s only one fashion in which any woman ever repents of anything.
slumlord,
Yeah, and don’t get me wrong — I’m not remotely saying that anyone should marry any particular other person, as a sign of forgiveness or as anything else. (Goodness knows, marrying someone in order to “save” her is a terrible idea.)
pb
April 12, 2012 at 11:51 am
Building enclaves is a necessary and basic step, but Christians should unite where possible (at the state level) for political resistance (to the Nat. Gov’t).
[Subsidiarity! All for it.]
canecaldo
April 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm
“There was a seminal article I read a while back that discussed what form religion would take in the future. Either it would be loosey-goosey, big tent, or it would be ridiculously strict, like the Amish, Orthodox Jews, or Trad Catholics. Middling religions would suffer denominational loss, as the middling restrictions would drive away the lax believers, but not give enough raw meat to the believers.
The future is now. The SBC, Methodists, ECUSA…they’re all shrinking. Only the RC and the LDS are growing in America.
[You did not mention the Amish. One of the largest denominations in the USA is lapsed Catholics. The RC Church has grown only by undermining the laws of the country and encouraging Latin immigration to fill the churches that liberalism drove away with Vatican II.]
canecaldo
April 12, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“I’d see people who’ve made that change and have clearly been the change our in a stable marriage for a number of years as being fairly likely to succeed in remaining married compared to a more mainstream couple who may not have any history of premarital promiscuity but don’t have a deep moral commitment to the idea that marriage is permanent and divorce not an option.“
Ok, I’d agree. On the other hand: I don’t think the people I put in bold even exist; certainly not in any numbers to be a factor. Unless we’re talking about the physically handicapped, or the very fat, who makes it to marriage as a virgins without a deep moral commitment to the idea…?
David Collard
April 13, 2012 at 3:38 am
“I am the civilisation for which you are fighting”. [Lytton Strachey]
electricangel1978
April 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm
@David Collard,
That’s the same guy who wrote: “When Louis XIV assumed the reins of government France suddenly and wonderfully came to her maturity; it was as if the whole nation had burst into splendid flower.”
My reaction to Versailles: Louis XIV was the Ceaucescu of the 17th Century, who ruined monarchical France and that great nation. Better to quote Ruskin!
electricangel1978
April 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm
@DC,
“My group” is probably making things sound a little more formal than the reality, but I would say that the number one thing is simply expectation: There’s a very, very strong expectation within the conservatively-minded Catholic circles that I move in that couples will work out their problems and stay together.
That strikes me as a little like Luther’s position on justification by faith alone. Faith will redound in good works, and expectation in your place ought to be matched by some formalism. I will write my proposal for that formalism, at least from a US perspective.
I tend to be gradualist — I think we’ll muddle on. The people who are so anti-marriage and so anti-life that they barely reproduce will see their beliefs die out. Those of us who have worldviews that are more sustainable will see our beliefs spread. The societal pendulum will gradually swing in the other direction, and people will take up equal and opposite vices in place of the ones most common today.
You face two problems: 1) How many defectors from your society can you suffer and still outbreed the secularists? 2) If the government can capture the economic wealth of your family through Social Security and taxation, they don’t NEED to have your family defect from its lifestyle. They get all the benefit of you investing all that time and effort in creating five little model citizens. Recall that the Amish do not pay social security, and bear children at about 6 per woman.
electricangel1978
April 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm
@matthew,
This statement could be read two ways. Do you believe it shows she is insincere, or that feminine repentance is almost always insincere, and this reads as sincere? Clarify, please.
Matthew
April 13, 2012 at 11:41 pm
electricangel1978: I read that as insincerity.
I might be willing to extend my statement to eliminate the modifier. I wouldn’t trust anyone who said “whether God could actually forgive someone like me.” Screams narcissism.
Matthew
April 13, 2012 at 11:44 pm
In considering EA’s question, I realize that I should have said, “That sure sounds to me like feminine UNrepentance.” Doubtless there are many sounds of repentance I haven’t heard. But I’ve smelled that particular stink before.
electricangel1978
April 14, 2012 at 12:21 am
Matthew,
You have in interesting fashion conflated two terms in those last two comments. I don’t think it sounds like female solipsism to make the comment about God’s forgiveness. If you think about it for a moment, it’s outrageous that the sin can be removed by confession. This is why Pride is the worst of the deadly sins; our hubris keeps us from admitting and accepting this most wondrous sacrament.
But repentance is different. It follows forgiveness, and is a LOT harder. A woman who has repented is a LOT harder to find than one who has been forgiven, and your point on that matter is well taken. I think true repentance is much rarer, and it involves taking to heart the admonition to “go forth, and sin no more.”
Matthew
April 14, 2012 at 12:46 am
electricangel, you’re presuming that females reason in the same way you do, and that the statement about God’s forgiveness is made from a rational point of view. When Eliza talks like Leibniz, should Jack take her seriously?
Matthew
April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am
I don’t believe it can. Perhaps I’ve forgotten the relevant scripture.
I have personally experienced confession that did not mitigate rebellion. Women do this: confession is a weapon they wield with skill.
Will S.
April 14, 2012 at 7:21 am
@ Matthew:
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” – 1 John 1:9
Matthew
April 14, 2012 at 1:21 am
EA, I thought of another example. If you don’t sound like Eustace after an encounter with Aslan’s claws, I won’t give you credit for repentance.
Listen: “One of the big struggles when I turned from a dragon back into a boy was with despair. Whether Aslan could actually flay someone with skin and scales like mine. Not to mention the bling.”
Will S.
April 14, 2012 at 7:28 am
@ EA:
Interesting observation; I hadn’t thought about it in those terms. I just assumed they were encouraging America to let in Hispanics, particularly Mexicans / ones entering from Mexico, as an act of mercy towards impoverished people, i.e. “Why shouldn’t they be allowed to have First World opportunities?”; also, I’ve always figured it’s the liberal American Catholics who push this, not strategizing, more shrewd and thoughtful faithful bishops.
Or do you figure it’s an unintended, but positive for the RCC, consequence, of the ideology of liberal American bishops?
electricangel1978
April 14, 2012 at 9:30 am
Thanks for that, Will. You could be like a superhero protecting the Catholics. “Protman: whenever a Catholic argument is foundering for lack of biblical reference, he flies in to the rescue with the relevant cite.”
Will S.
April 14, 2012 at 9:40 am
@ EA: {Snort} Only in the service of Higher Truth, in general, regardless of which ‘side’ it supports; we Prots are all about that. 🙂
BTW, you haven’t answered my question above, yet.
P.S. My post about the Reformed patriarch, which I mentioned to you would be forthcoming, is up.
electricangel1978
April 14, 2012 at 11:00 am
@Matthew,
electricangel, you’re presuming that females reason in the same way you do, and that the statement about God’s forgiveness is made from a rational point of view.
Actually, I assume it is emotional. There is nothing rational in conceiving that some of the outrageous sins we commit can be forgiven. It is an emotional experience to leave the confessional and be unburdened. I would think the female response is in line with that emotion; recall that Faith, too, is not rational; you can use reason to come close, but must make a leap somewhere.
I have personally experienced confession that did not mitigate rebellion. Women do this: confession is a weapon they wield with skill.
Yes, as you have elided in this discussion: only repentance will do. They’re good at avoiding that. It’s hard work.
electricangel1978
April 14, 2012 at 12:09 pm
@Will,
I think they use “Welcome the stranger” as a cover for the fact that they are using unlimited immigration to rebuild flocks of people who have fallen away. They could encourage REAL faith and hard choices, and speak out against the culture of divorce and contraception, and get themselves a growing flock from within. But that is hard, and liberalism often seems to be the avoidance of the hard, unpopular choices. The road to hell, and all…
Will S.
April 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Interesting! And dismaying, indeed.
But to what extent ARE Hispanic immigrants becoming faithful attendees?
Svar
April 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“But to what extent ARE Hispanic immigrants becoming faithful attendees?”
I know that this book is a work of fiction but check out these excerpts from Chilton Williamson Jr.: http://www.chiltonwilliamson.com/books/the_americanization_of_hector_pancho_villa.html
It seems that most of them abandon Catholicism in this Godless country. Chilton Williamson Jr., as you probably know, is an immigration-restrictionist and an editor for Chronicles.
Will S.
April 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm
I’m not surprised, Svar, since most of them, esp. wetbacks, end up joining the underclass. And the underclass does not go to worship.