Friday, November 23, 2012

Today's links


  • Today’s Slow-News-Day Retail and Media Hype Day, commonly called Black Friday.
  • Roger Scruton: The failure of modernism.
  • LRC: Happy Thanksgivings. Long before the British Pilgrims held their Thanksgiving in Massachusetts, a Thanksgiving Mass was held in St. Augustine, Florida, on September 8, 1565, by the Spanish. There was also a Thanksgiving Mass in San Elizario, Texas, and a British Thanksgiving service in Charles City County, Virginia, pre-Pilgrim. So why are these, and so many others, non-events? Because having taken place in the South, they had to be erased by Lincoln, who wanted to pretend that America started in New England, and tied his Thanksgiving to his war of aggression.
  • Roissy: The predictable call to accept the wages of slut.
  • How to reframe. Again true as long as you allow for individual liberty, not the same as the left’s egalitarian fantasy.
  • Gavin McInnes at Takimag: The myth of shock value.
  • Ad Orientem: Fred Reed on the death of language and culture.
  • Hilary: Real nuns and my summary of JP2. And: Also, can we please stop pretending that we’re surprised that the Traddie world is attracting vocations? Novusordoism has nothing to offer someone looking for somewhere to give himself to God. Only Catholicism (which is what we used to call “traditionalism”) is going to fit that bill. How is it surprising that this nearly abandoned dead-end has failed to attract honest Catholics? It isn’t.
  • The Woman and the Dragon. Catholic No longer practicing Catholic but still Christian woman vs. feminism.
  • MCJ: On online crying over the latest C of E vote on women bishops.

22 comments:

  1. Re: Real Nuns & JP2

    True but there is also a cultural paradigm shift in modern RCC at least in the U.S. I am only working from my experience but ISTM that the rank and file sheep-in-the-pews are fully inculturated with the modern Church to include nuns in civilian clothes, pedestrianism throughout the liturgies of the Church (IOW the iconoclasm of hokiness), etc. I am not saying they are by and large overtly heretical (I have seen some of this but not large amounts of this), but it is just not the same RCC as pre-V2. Pragmatically it is a different religion to me even if the party line (theology of the CC) is the same. Funny thing. I have never agreed to change my religion, so if I live my Catholic life as I had known it and also spoke out vigorously against this pragmatically "new" religion, this would make be a dissenter, technically. Ironic . . . huh?

    Re: Traditionalists

    Yes, they attract vocations but I wonder if the total number of traditionalist vocations will nonetheless remain alarmingly small compared with the relatively larger pedestrian Church????

    Re: Women and lower wage rates

    I am not a fan of huge educational debt. Nonetheless, $20,000 of debt is reasonably easy for an engineering student with a good engineering job to pay off over time, even a female that is allegedly making on the average 7% less than her male counterparts. The facile reason that women are on the average less competent than men in technical areas is a hard pill to swallow based upon my limited experience. Just as with the men in technical work I have known and worked with, some were losers and some were winners; same with the women with whom I worked, only with the woman I have seen them as very or supremely competent or total f*ck-ups. No gradations or continuum on the incompetent-competent scale or line with the women compared with the men I have known. Even this latter experience of mine can be explained by the fact that I am heterosexual. Thus, I look at women closer than I look at men! And like most men (or so I perceive), I tend to look at the extremes when it comes to women. Very pretty or *******; not much in between.

    Show me hard data with scientifically valid analysis (if this is possible with sociological data) for the reasons for the average pay differences between men and women. There has to be some info "out there."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Novusordism/AmChurch is a different religion using the Catholic name, the worst of American Catholic culture as the great Thomas Day describes it mixed with the worst of mainline Protestantism (Modernism and Methodist low church).

      Oh, yeah, we'll be a minority — in every era the Catholic Church simply is, but I'm no new-springtime Pollyanna — but a lively one. It's happening in my parish, a trad magnet. Couples in their 30s with four or more children.

      The reason for the pay gap I learned from LRC is simply that healthy women don't like the corporate rat race and drop out when they marry and have kids. So men work harder and longer and thus on average make more. As Sailer wrote, women don't love the macho executive way of life but love macho executives so they quit and have their babies.

      Delete
  2. Re: Roissy & his sluts

    I usually distain Roissy. The way he approaches his subjects routinely offends me. Ironically, this last example resonates with some recent experience with my family. There is a young girl here who behaves exactly the way Roissy describes. And apparently her female friends act pretty much this way too. Spooky! Either Roissy has guessed right (i.e., screwed up in reverse) or he has a valid point on this and other subjects.

    I feel sorry for my son. The available supply of "good" females for future romance and/or marriage seem alarmingly small. I would not accept these "ho's" into my family graciously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the Anti-Gnostic puts it, Roissy is deep traditionalism beneath the bluster. He's not the Pope and doesn't claim to be. He gives men who need it a road map of the natural order, fallen and worsened by Modernism, and a tool, game, to fairly happily make their way in it.

      Delete
  3. My dear Serge, I really think that Woman and the Dragon blog is supposed to be a joke, making fun of sincere Catholics. For one thing, it is pornographic. It is written without shame or modesty; I have trouble believing a devout Catholic woman wrote it. Whoever wrote it is seriously confused on a number of issues. It promotes practices contrary to marital chastity. Furthermore, Christian marriage does not require a wife to be a sex slave, particularly where unnatural acts are concerned. Brides are not prostitutes. What frightens me is that I see some young Catholic women promoting this blog. If that what they think Christian marriage is, I feel sorry for them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello,
    Thank you for linking to my blog. A few notes about me, my blog, and also a refutation of what Ms. Vidal has written.

    1. I am not Catholic, although I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church thanks to my devout grandmother. I am Protestant. However, I have many Catholic readers. I married young but pursued academics and a career and considered myself a feminist before coming to faith in Jesus Christ. I learned many lessons, some of them painful, from my feminist years, and I wish to teach women how to avoid some of the mistakes I made.
    2. My blog most certainly is not a joke nor do I make fun of people. I do make fun of stupid ideas, with my sights generally set on the idiocy of feminism.
    3. My blog is in no way pornographic. There are no nude images on my blog, nor do I advocate unnatural acts. I have written frankly about sex within the constraints of the holy covenant of marriage. Ms. Vidal would be wise to open her Bible some time, and read 1 Corinthians 7:5, and the entire book of Solomon's Song of Songs. Many, many Christian women are in sin because of their constant refusal of their husbands. All that I actively promote is not depriving one's spouse; individual couples are responsible for determining what specific sexual activity is acceptable to them given their preferences and religious traditions. I have advocated strongly against the use of artificial birth control.

    God bless you.

    Sunshine Mary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:13 am

      You advocate oral sex and anal sex. Are these natural acts? You even give tips about performing oral sex. If this is not pornography...Words can be also pornographic. I really doubt you are a woman. You are probably a man, a hidden leftist making fun of all the conservatives naive enough to promote you. Some people are so desperate for allies that they would accept anyone as along as he/she marches under their banner.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:33 am

      And one more thing: could you please explain how can a good Christian man acquire the taste for oral or anal sex so that his dutiful wife must satisfy it? By reading the church magazine? Or by participating to the Christian men fellowship? How indeed?

      Delete
    3. Could you please explain why you think a wife should strive to be less sexually skilled than a professional whore? Also, why is it unbelievable to you - to the extent that you doubt Sunshine Mary is a woman at all - that a woman would enjoy sex with her husband?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, I don't advocate any particular sexual practices. Readers should do what they is appropriate for them in the bedroom. Regarding anal sex, you are thinking of a post by Red Pill Wifey, not me. I have specifically said that anal sex is not my cup of tea. But again, what a husband and wife do in the bedroom is their business, not mine. I only advocate having sex, because we are commanded to in the Bible (do you ever read the Bible?).

      As for a man developing a taste for oral sex - I'm pretty sure men don't have read about oral sex in a church magazine or elsewhere to know that they will like it. Furthermore, my Catholic readers assure me that the Theology of the Body and other writings, as well as most priests, affirm that oral sex as foreplay is permissible. If you disagree, take it up with your own, not with me, because I don't care whether Catholics do this or not. And if you don't like reading the occasional comment on my site about oral sex (which is permissible to Protestants), then you ought not to read my site at all.

      If my writings are so unacceptable, I find it odd that so many commenters here seem unusually familiar with everything I've written. When I find an objectionable site, I simply avoid it. It's like you are saying "This internet ain't big enough fer the two of us!"

      But actually, I'm guessing there are a whole bushel of frigid women here whose consciences are pricked by reading about a woman who enjoys hot, holy sex with her husband. To those women I say: either put out properly for your own man or go suck a lemon. You'll have no luck in convincing me to join you in your frigidity.

      Delete
  5. Ms. Sunshine, I am acquainted with Sacred Scripture, and nowhere do I see it recommending oral sex as part of wifely obedience. You have twisted Sacred Scripture. You blaspheme the Mother of God by having her picture on a blog that is for whores, not for wives.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to second Elena Maria Vidal's comments about the Woman & the Dragon blog. First, if you're not Catholic, then you ought to remove the image of Our Lady from your front page--particularly when just below it in one of your posts you give sexual advice in the most explicit and near-pornographic detail. Alice von Hildebrand laments the modern loss of "holy bashfulness" among women today, and your blog is one glaring example of that.

    You write: "[I]ndividual couples are responsible for determining what specific sexual activity is acceptable to them given their preferences and religious traditions."

    And herein lies the crux of the problem. As a protestant, you reject the Magisterium and therefore think it's up to the individual (and not the Church) to determine what is or is not lawful in the marital bed--which is why you feel free to offer sexual advice about acts that would violate conjugal chastity.

    The title of your blog along with the image of Our Lady mislead others into thinking you are a Catholic offering orthodox Catholic commentary. Please stop leading others astray by either changing your name, removing the image, or putting up a very large disclaimer so there is no confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, what right do you have to tell sunshinemary she can't use a picture of Our Lady? Mary is the Mother of all people, not just Catholics, and you ought to know that. You and elena are just the kind of stumbling blocks that prevent people who might otherwise convert from doing so. (I know; I've encountered your sort before I converted and it did put me off).

      Second, only an idiot would look to a blog for 'orthodox commentary' without going to the source first. We each have to use our God-given reason on the Internet, not expect to be led by a woman writing a blog!

      Prudish, repressive, refusing, domineering, sanctimonious women will not attract many converts to Christianity/Catholicism with 'their truth' when they tout (and promote) their personal experience of marriage, which is the 3 ring ideology: His Ring, Her Ring, and Mutual Suffer-Ring.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:38 am

      So CL, the message to the no-Christian men would be: do not be afraid to convert to Christianity, our women are not prudish, they offer oral sex like professional whores...well, after you marry them. Catchy tune indeed. I bet it will attract lots of converts.:-)

      Delete
    3. This was obviously written by a woman since the exaggeration and extrapolation are immense. No need to go to the other extreme but since you put it that way, there is nothing wrong or anti-Christian about being an exclusive, wanton, willing, sexual woman for your husband.

      Delete
  7. My blog is not the place to debate the Catholic/Protestant theological divide, and I will not get drawn into that because it distracts from the message of what I'm trying to convey with my site. I am a Christian anti-feminist. When I look at devout Catholics, I see natural allies in the fight against creeping Christo-feminism and against the use of the Church to promote secular feminism via the destruction of the God-ordained patriarchal family structure. However, I will note that among practicing Catholics, the divorce rate is around 25% (for Bible-believing Prots, I believe it is even worse, around 38%), so while you're busy being all bashful, your sisters are absorbing feminism, frigidity, and frivorce from the world and the Church around them. Why would you rather fight me than that?

    However, I take strong exception to your referring to me as writing for whores. I assume that by "whores", you actually mean sluts and not prostitutes. I am very outspoken about maintaining virginity before marriage, marrying only once, remaining sexually faithful and sexually available, and eschewing artificial birth control. Furthermore, if a reader is Catholic, she will know that certain sexual practices are not allowable for her, but she can still absorb the message I am promoting, which is that a wife has no right to refuse her husband sexually. If you have a problem with that message, you'll have to take it up with St. Paul, since he is the one who delivered that command to us from our Heavenly Father.

    Peace in Christ,
    Sunshine Mary

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:45 pm

    Don't go jumping to the erroneous conclusion I just refuted the virgin birth of our savior,I did not.
    God was good enough to send the angel of the Lord unto Jacob to assure him of:
    1.Her pregnancy was by the Holy Spirit and hence she was not having sex out of marriage.
    2.That she would give birth to the savior AND still make a fine and normal wife,including wifely duties as outlined in scripture.
    No,the scripture does not specifically say my point#2 but that is implicit to Jacob's interests and concerns as to taking her as wife.
    freebird

    ReplyDelete
  9. SSM has already been caught out at least once in the comments lying about stuff that supposedly happened between her and her husband (presenting a common urban legend as personal anecdote). (S)he is not who (s)he says (s)he is.

    The fact that she tends to mess up various really basic aspects of Christianity (for example, posting a Catholic blog header when she's a Protestant, misquoting scripture) makes me think she's probably a single, secular male blogger trying to rope in the "trad religious" crowd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I beg your pardon? I have never, ever been "caught out" lying about anything. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been entirely honest on my site, with the exception of trying to conceal my identity. I was unaware of any urban legends; I do not have television, by the way, and am fairly culturally-unaware. If I were going to lie, I certainly wouldn't use an urban legend to do so. That is absurd. Any anecdotes I share are ones that have actually happened to me.

      The painting on my header is no more Catholic than any other religious painting. You cannot name even one place where I have misquoted Scripture because it has literally never happened. I challenge you to find such a misquote. You are attacking me, but that is silly, because the real problem is not me but rather serious cultural and spiritual forces bent on the destruction of the family. Why you would attack someone who is attempting to combat that is beyond comprehension.

      Delete
    2. What ever are you talking about? I've been reading her blog since its inception and this is news to me. I suggest you offer, at the very least, a link as evidence, otherwise this is just calumny.

      As to your second assertion, that's some pretty flimsy 'evidence' to lead to that level of conspiracy theory. Very poor deductive reasoning there.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, CL. Of course I am not messing up basic aspects of Christianity. I was raised (very nominally) Catholic, was unpracticing in my twenties, and became a Protestant at 31 (specifically, Calvinist). It's absurd to say that I've ever messed up any basic aspects of Christianity.

      We should ask commenter Farm Boy to affirm that I am female. I have reason to believe that he has figured out my real identity. :)

      Oh, *sob* I just thought of a lie I've told! Sometimes I say that I ran five miles, when in fact it was really only four and a half. *hanging my head in shame* But I only wrote that because it was shorter and easier to write, I wasn't trying to deceive my readers!

      Delete

Leave comment