The anti-women left falls back on sexual slurs and dehumanization (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/09/the-anti-women-left-falls-back-on-sexual-slurs-and-dehumanization/)
by Lori Ziganto

Last week, I attended the Smart Girl Summit in Washington, D.C. The conference was filled with women of strength, of brains, of beauty and of fierce resolve. Women from all walks of life who came together, fighting and trying to do what is best for their children and this country. But, I was struck by something else; to the Left, these women are either whores or some creepy new invention of faux women, worthy of only mocking and ridicule.

Many told of times where they had been, like I have, called “gender traitors” or not real women. I’ve been called a dumb tart, just a rack, and told “I have better meat for her mouth.” I’ve been accused of being a wholly owned subsidiary of male dominated culture, whatever that means. We dumb tarts can’t seem to figure out things like that.

Every woman I met laughed such things off. That part didn’t shock me. See, we don’t relish victim-hood. We are also secure and comfortable in our own skins, breasts and fancy wombs and all. But, another reason it is laughed off did bother me. Because we are “used to it.” The thing is, we shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be happening. Yet, it does. Over and over.

Kirsten Powers attended the panel I was on, called Feminism 2.0, the New Face of Feminism, with Jenn Q. Public and Pamela Gorman, moderated by Adrienne Royer. While Kirsten is an unabashed liberal and likely disagrees with us on most policy points, she listened and understood the vile hatred toward conservative women that comes out of the Left. Her article at the Daily Beast today reflects that. She touched on some examples, including the most recent one whereby Jerry Brown called Meg Whitman “a whore.” She’s a dame, you see. Thus, anything concerning financial things, which women can’t possibly understand, is whore-y. Am I right, fellas?

Jerry Brown isn’t alone. And it isn’t just coming from men. Alleged feminists are some of the worst offenders, spewing sexist and outright misogynistic garbage at conservative women. Because, abortion. They have grossly tied up equality and “women’s rights” with a legal ability to kill your unborn children. Killing the unborn is a cause to them and women who dare to challenge them by pointing out the vile nature of such a thing must be gender traitors or dehumanized in any way possible. Kirsten Powers notes the following: While we, sadly, are all too familiar with the casual misogynistic comment, what perhaps is more surprising is where these slurs lately have been coming from—progressive bastions like the Brown camp, and liberal women.

Last month, liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller laughed uproariously when a female guest on her show said that if she ever met Michelle Malkin, “I would kick [her] right in the nuts,” and warned, “Wear a cup, lady.”
Nice, huh? Stay classy, femisogynists! My only quibble is that it’s not surprising at all. The past year alone has shown that.

Gloria Steinem recently said conservative women cannot be Feminists. Cannot. Why? Because you are anti-woman if you are pro-life. Many other faux-feminists, or femisogynists, have been flapping their soy-drinking gums with outrageous, and shrieking, outrage in a similar vein. “Oh noes!” they say “Conservative women are trying to steal Feminism! They can’t be feminists. They are icky!” Um. Selective support for only “the right kind” of woman and slamming the doors you claim to open right in their faces is antithetical to actual feminism. Shatter that glass ceiling, but only if you do it by walking in lock-step with us!

Tina Brown, also from The Daily Beast, called GOP women winning some primaries “a blow to feminism”. You know, because they are meany pants and have cooties or something. Not real women.But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.
Yeah, no. They don’t fight against what I want and I happen to be a broad, Miss Brown. I also don’t think women are stupid and, therefore, should only focus on made-up, busy work issues like the nebulous “reproductive rights” and pyramid scheme, faux- environmental issues like the Left wants them to do. She then went onto say that it was even worse because they were rich women. Oh, well, rich women. They must not have enough estrogen or something. How could women be rich? That’s for boys!

This summer, a Democrat Congresswoman, Rep. Janis Sontany (D-TN) said about her Republican counterparts ““You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote!” They can’t have girly bits, you see. If they were real women, they wouldn’t have strayed off the Democrat plantation! Somehow the idea that we only dress as women is a biggie with the Left. Trying to black-ball us from their exclusive, and kinda creepy, Stepford-Feminist club isn’t enough, you see. They have to try to dehumanize us to the point where even our gender is taken away from us. An article at Alternet said:Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzlies are merely the latest incarnation of the anti-women’s movement — a movement to oppose real solutions for women, dressed up in a skirt and lipstick, as if to legitimize their efforts to block progress.
The ever bitter and idiotic Eleanor Clift called Sarah Palin “Pat Buchanan in drag”. Salon said Sarah Palin “may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman.” Patricia Ireland of the National Organization of Women (should have “only our kind of” in front of Women) told Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates. And Naomi Wolf once said that Jeane Kilpatrick was “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.” To the Left, we are either not real women or we are whores, conservative porn, or sex objects with no brains because a woman can’t possibly have both. The response to the Citzen’s United movie about conservative women, Fire From the Heartland, put that on full and disgusting display.

Enough. We won’t take it lying down, despite the fact that Jerry Brown apparently believes we spend all our time on our backs.

So, no. I refuse to be “used to it.” And the Left should take note and remember that old adage about hell, scorned women and fury. Please do say hello to the scorned come November.

It was pretty shocking when the recent CA story came to light - hopefully it will help Whitman pull through the election and the Governator can get back to making movies. Sadly this situation is the same when it comes to blacks conservatives. Men like Alan Keyes and Justice Thomas thus aren't "really" black because they are conservative. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a checkered past but he still believed in natural law and I highly doubt he would be in line with the liberals today.

In any case, the fact that liberal women's groups are still out supporting Brown is an insult to women across the nation. I can't speak personally about Whitman as I know very little about her beyond what I've been hearing on TV lately, but it's important for us to have a better understanding of being male and female. It seems like the leftist conception of woman is one of power, dominance, and even some rage. The "conservative" view offers a "traditional" but, I would argue, uplifting vision of woman.

Take Archbishop Fulton Sheen for example and tell me this is not positive: "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

Which story are you refering to?

I was referring to the governor's race in California. The Democrat running (Jerry Brown) called the GOP candidate (Meg Whitman) a whore. The story is referenced in the article above.

Also, I read an article I think in Newsweek about conservative-oriented feminism which was quite interesting. Nevertheless, I am not the biggest Palin fan in the world. The problem is that many politicians tend to be spineless and I would bet that if a real man, one of principle and virtue, ran for office that he would win by a landslide.

Actually, Brown and his team strategized about calling her a whore. It wasn't even off the cuff - they were caught planning it.

I'm no fan of Jerry Brown, and frankly, in this day and age, I wouldn't even dismiss the idea that such a "mistake" was deliberately made.

But calling someone a "whore" in the context of politics, be they male of female, is not a sign of sexism of hating women. We can complain about the tone of politics, or how shallow and superficial the debate often times is, but we need not have another protected class of politician.

It's getting so that you need to have a rule book on you before launching a dig at another candidate. She's a political whore.... um.. you can't say that she's a woman and that's more offensive... well, then she has political masters... um, they're black- so that makes people think of slavery...

However, I do agree that the left in this country does viciously attack female conservatives in the most base, offensive, and personal ways. There's no better example than the vitriol and hate launched at Sarah Palin. They relentlessly tried to sexualize her, then marginalize her, while simultaneously destroying her family personally. Seriously, why did NY Times investigate the VP candidate husbands decades old DUI while NEVER even talking to a single professor of Obama's at Columbia? Or maybe reporting on who Rev. Write was and what he actually was preaching.

Ultimately the attacks on conservative woman are probably based on two things-
1- fear. It undermines the left's domination of women voters through the guise of "woman's rights." This usurpers must be destroyed, BY ANY MEANS necessary. There is no morality in the Alinsky model.

2-and some of it is personal. To the useful idiots, the ones that don't understand the broader social and political goals, a woman who they see opposing them is a traitor, and the attacks take on an ugly personal tone.

I'm no fan of Jerry Brown, and frankly, in this day and age, I wouldn't even dismiss the idea that such a "mistake" was deliberately made.

But calling someone a "whore" in the context of politics, be they male of female, is not a sign of sexism of hating women. We can complain about the tone of politics, or how shallow and superficial the debate often times is, but we need not have another protected class of politician.

It's getting so that you need to have a rule book on you before launching a dig at another candidate. She's a political whore.... um.. you can't say that she's a woman and that's more offensive... well, then she has political masters... um, they're black- so that makes people think of slavery...

However, I do agree that the left in this country does viciously attack female conservatives in the most base, offensive, and personal ways. There's no better example than the vitriol and hate launched at Sarah Palin. They relentlessly tried to sexualize her, then marginalize her, while simultaneously destroying her family personally. Seriously, why did NY Times investigate the VP candidate husbands decades old DUI while NEVER even talking to a single professor of Obama's at Columbia? Or maybe reporting on who Rev. Write was and what he actually was preaching.

Ultimately the attacks on conservative woman are probably based on two things-
1- fear. It undermines the left's domination of women voters through the guise of "woman's rights." This usurpers must be destroyed, BY ANY MEANS necessary. There is no morality in the Alinsky model.

2-and some of it is personal. To the useful idiots, the ones that don't understand the broader social and political goals, a woman who they see opposing them is a traitor, and the attacks take on an ugly personal tone.
There's nothing wrong with using the Alinsky model against the Alinskyites. They set the rules, so we play by them. Give them a taste of their own medicine. They're hypocrites anyway because they have no moral base.

Take Archbishop Fulton Sheen for example and tell me this is not positive: "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

Right on, right on...

You lost me at the seventh word in on the article....

Oddly they didn't call it the Million 'Boy' March...

You lost me at the seventh word in on the article....

Oddly they didn't call it the Million 'Boy' March...

Holy S**T!

Where have you been all this time?

You lost me at the seventh word in on the article....

Oddly they didn't call it the Million 'Boy' March...So, you show up to announce that you didn't read the article.

Way to stay relevant. :rolleyes:

Oddly they didn't call it the Million 'Boy' March...

Stop being racist.:rolleyes:

Shag - I've been around - a little - posting on other boards (the Anything Goes board) - I got a new toy which is taking time, mostly just driving it - it is a blast to drive, but it needs a bit of 'sorting time'. Also - SEMA is right around the corner, and I have ton of stuff to do for that show. Just went out to see one of our booth cars - a 1,000 hp at the wheels 370Z....

Nope, didn't read the article foss - really couldn't get beyond the whole 'smart girl' thing. Would you read an article where the first sentence states that someone organized a 'smart boy' conference? blick.

Take Archbishop Fulton Sheen for example and tell me this is not positive: "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

Gosh, the ultimate 'guilt free, let's blame them' quote - thank you Federali. If men are bad, it is because the women aren't virtuous, have weak, or immoral character, are deceitful, unjust, bad...

Hey, how about taking on some responsibility on your own. Men shouldn't have to be 'good' because they need to impress the 'little lady' (let's keep this sexist - it seems to fit in with the thrust of this thread). Or is that the only reason men are 'good'?

Cal - stop being sexist... ;)

oh, this is the Z....

Hey, how about taking on some responsibility on your own.

Well I can honestly say that I have never treated a woman in a way that fails to recognize her dignity. Sadly many men have not done so. I was actually just at a big chastity event with some of my students last night and the presenters spoke of how they didn't want to be too tough on the guys for fear they might lose their attention. But I think men do need to be called out on this and be told to man up.

Women, however, need to start wearing more clothes. Don't tell me they're wearing next to nothing for no reason at all.. Can we at least agree on that?

And don't think I'm forgetting about our last conversation...

I got a new toy which is taking time, mostly just driving it - it is a blast to drive, but it needs a bit of 'sorting time'. Also - SEMA is right around the corner, and I have ton of stuff to do for that show. Just went out to see one of our booth cars - a 1,000 hp at the wheels 370Z....

I have a friend with a 350Z and that car is a blast. Sounds like your new toy would be fun as well. What engine is in the 370's? What is the stock power and what all has been done to your Z?

Would you read an article where the first sentence states that someone organized a 'smart boy' conference?

I certainly wouldn't discount it because of that comment.


Gosh, the ultimate 'guilt free, let's blame them' quote - thank you Federali. If men are bad, it is because the women aren't virtuous, have weak, or immoral character, are deceitful, unjust, bad...

Where are you getting that? That seems to be almost 180 degrees out of whack from what Fed (and the archbishop) is saying.

Once again the troll foxpaws shows up and makes the thread all about her, while indignantly objecting to an article that she didn't bother to read, and finishing it off with cheap shots at somebody she doesn't even know but instinctively dislikes, simply because he's a man. Sounds like your typical angry feminazi lib.:rolleyes:

Shag - I wish that 370Z was mine - dual turbos, etc.... It probably has about $75k or so of aftermarket. Those custom wheels alone are about 7.5k. I am with you - they are fun cars.

However my new toy is a Porsche - it was discussed in the 'anything goes' thread - an 'upgrade' to my garage.

So, doesn't the archbishop's 'quote' indicate that men will only rise to the level they need to, to impress or become 'worthy' of the woman they want? Maybe I am missing something.

Foss - what man are you talking about now? That I instinctively dislike? Your concern is... touching.

Federali - more clothes? Once again, if only women would be more responsible, and wear more clothes - all would be better. I think we are drifting off into culpability land again.

I haven't forgotten the other conversation - that is going to take time to respond to - and right now I have 'snippets' - this thread is deserving of 'snippets' that other one needs to be better drafted.

So, doesn't the archbishop's 'quote' indicate that men will only rise to the level they need to, to impress or become 'worthy' of the woman they want? Maybe I am missing something.

It is simply an issue of motivation. Most that a man does is, in some way, aimed at impressing women, attracting a mate. Weather or not that is a "valid" motivation is a different (and irrelevantly academic) question. While it might be nice to think we function at a higher level and have grown beyond such petty things, it is unrealistic to assume that we do. The motivation for a mate drives men to better themselves and vice versa.

What is so "evil" about that?

Didn't I see that car on ebay?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330451757774#v4-37

was owned by a Peter North, canadian eh?

Women, however, need to start wearing more clothes. Don't tell me they're wearing next to nothing for no reason at all.. Can we at least agree on that?



This is their way of helping in the fight against Islam :p

So, doesn't the archbishop's 'quote' indicate that men will only rise to the level they need to, to impress or become 'worthy' of the woman they want? Maybe I am missing something.
Leave your personal life out of this. We all know that you're single for a reason.;)

Didn't I see that car on ebay?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330451757774#v4-37

was owned by a Peter North, canadian eh?

370Z '04, not 300zx... Peter North - isn't he a porn star? Blick - you would have to gut the interior. ;)

Shag - isn't all this heading down to the road of women have a choice - virtuous or not virtuous, of good character or bad, just or unjust, etc. But, it looks like to me that you/federali are claiming that men basically don't have that same choice. They rise (or fall) to the level of the women.

When you then stand back - because women make the choices, and basically are the only ones with that ability, than if things go awry - men can't be blamed. Men didn't have a choice, they were just blindly following the women's lead.

Just as Federali is starting the ball rolling when it comes to the issue of women's clothing. Men just can't help themselves... But, women can - they have the choice - sexy clothing or abaya. So, if men start rutting around and acting stupidly - it isn't their fault, it is those bad women who decided to wear something that wasn't an abaya.

So, the muslims have something right in this respect? Cover your women from head to toe...

370Z '04, not 300zx... Peter North - isn't he a porn star? Blick - you would have to gut the interior. ;)




Ya I know it's not a 370.
Just messing with you, and yes that was porn star Peter North's car :p.

Muslim men and not their Allah say they can't control themselves so they cover their women up as if they are property.

...Federali is starting the ball rolling when it comes to the issue of women's clothing. Men just can't help themselves... But, women can - they have the choice - sexy clothing or abaya. So, if men start rutting around and acting stupidly - it isn't their fault, it is those bad women who decided to wear something that wasn't an abaya.

I never once asserted that men who stoop to the level of the indecency that scantily clad women do are acting justly or respectfully. In fact, the truly virtuous man can see such a woman and not act in a lustful way. There is actually a true story of a Catholic bishop who was out with some other bishops in Italy and they came across a prostitute who wore little. All but the one bishop turned their eyes so as not to be tempted - but the truly virtuous bishop saw her and looked upon her with authentic love. She saw him look at her without lust, left her prostitution, and they both became canonized saints later.

Archbishop Sheen is not trying to guilt anyone - because both men and women must be responsible for their behavior. There are many men who will use women whether ill-clad or not, but women know what they are doing when they reveal too much of themselves. And it doesn't show much respect for themselves either. Are you really arguing that women aren't asking to be used by men when they are not dressed appropriately? And try not to give us a false dichotomy here because no one argued to cover women head to toe.

I should also note that the male brain needs to be understood and treated appropriately by women - just as men are to understand and respect women. When emotive sensory data enters the male brain in the limbic system between the eyes and ears, it is sent not to the neocortex for "intellectual processing" but rather to the brain stem where instinct controls. Neurologically speaking, men are hardwired to act physically to such sensory stimulation. If women had any respect for us, they would treat us accordingly.

Shag - isn't all this heading down to the road of women have a choice - virtuous or not virtuous, of good character or bad, just or unjust, etc. But, it looks like to me that you/federali are claiming that men basically don't have that same choice. They rise (or fall) to the level of the women.


I think you are reading too much into this. Men and women are both naturally motivated to attract a mate and that motivation can inspire virtuous behavior in them. There is no attempt to absolve men from any moral responsibility and place the burden entirely on women, there is no attempt to shift the blame going on.

The inverse of rising to the level of a potential mate can also occur, as you alluded to. Men can fall to the level of women but women can also fall to the level of man. It is not a one way street and to infer that is the argument being made is to misunderstand the argument.

However, as Daniel Tosh famously pointed out, we all know who sinned first. Do you women really have to eat everything? ;)

In all seriousness do you disagree with the notion that the drive to attract a mate has a profound effect on someone?

shag - federali
Archbishop Fulton Sheen said "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. ... The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

So - I read that as women driven - if the level of civilization is greatly dependent on the 'level of its womanhood' and if history could be 'written in terms of the level of its women' it seems pretty much to me he is indicating that it is a woman's world, not man's. A 'moslty' one way street shag.

Are you really arguing that women aren't asking to be used by men when they are not dressed appropriately?

Really federali - that is a very slippery slope - that is the slope that ends with the rape defense - 'she asked for it'.

So - do you believe that women 'ask for it'?

And yes shag - mating behavior has shaped humans - but so has the lust for power, the belief in a higher power, the drive of charity...

And, most men are rather appreciative than women eat everything ;)

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said "To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. ... The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women."

So - I read that as women driven - if the level of civilization is greatly dependent on the 'level of its womanhood' and if history could be 'written in terms of the level of its women' it seems pretty much to me he is indicating that it is a woman's world, not man's. A 'moslty' one way street shag.

Actually, what he is saying is much more nuanced and in fact opposed to what you are saying. It is not viewing the world simplistically as driven by a single gender (as you seem to want to). It is focusing on how the two genders and gender roles interact with and influence each other. To miss that is to miss what the Archbishop is saying.

Really federali - that is a very slippery slope - that is the slope that ends with the rape defense - 'she asked for it'.

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope... is a classical informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy) (but it can also refer to a logically valid argument).

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

And yes shag - mating behavior has shaped humans - but so has the lust for power, the belief in a higher power, the drive of charity...

So, if attracting a mate shapes human behavior what is so absurd about what the archbishop says?

I see nothing 'nuanced' in what the Archbishop is stating in the 'snip' that federali gave us - there it is pretty clear what he is saying - that women are the driving force behind history - unless there is more to that quote that would indicate that it works both ways - then that is all he said shag - there wasn't any statement or indication that he believes that men's behavior in any way influences what women do. If there is - could you please point that out to me.

And I'll let federali defend this:
Are you really arguing that women aren't asking to be used by men when they are not dressed appropriately?

To me it is pretty much 'in your face' that he thinks women 'ask for it'.

Finding a mate does shape some human behavior shag - but it is a small part - finding food used to be the largest defining factor in human behavior - that has been very diminished with the advent of McDonalds ;). There are lots of things that influence us shag, finding a mate is just one of many. You, federali, and the Archbishop are isolating and elevating just one of these. How about the whole lead in the food argument for Rome - pretty convincing. How much did lead have to do with the rise and fall of the empire? Probably far more than women.

I see nothing 'nuanced' in what the Archbishop is stating...

Likely because you simply don't want to see anything other then simplistic woman bashing in the statement. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should look beyond rhetoric and emotion to focus on the theoretical roots of the statement. Dismissing a very insightful comment like that and rationalizing that dismissal through cheap straw man arguments only undercuts your own credibility.

Finding a mate does shape some human behavior shag - but it is a small part

Most anyone's experience in high school would beg to differ. It is not a "small" part, by any means.

Your attempts to rhetorically diminish the influence of finding a mate on human behavior are getting more and more desperate...

finding food used to be the largest defining factor in human behavior

And that plays right into the point the Archbishop is raising. Can you see how?

Finding a mate does shape some human behavior shag - but it is a small part - finding food used to be the largest defining factor in human behavior - that has been very diminished with the advent of McDonalds ;). There are lots of things that influence us shag, finding a mate is just one of many. Do you have any actual evidence for this claim, or are you just speaking from experience?

Likely because you simply don't want to see anything other then simplistic woman bashing in the statement. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should look beyond rhetoric and emotion to focus on the theoretical roots of the statement. Dismissing a very insightful comment like that and rationalizing that dismissal through cheap straw man arguments only undercuts your own credibility.

So, look beyond the statement - is a viable argument? My ascertaining that it creates culpability with regards to men being able to say - 'ain't my fault' is right up front - now we have to pretend we know that the archbishop's statement is insightful and if you look 'beyond' his words you can find out the 'real' underlying meaning of his words.

Well, shag - I can look beyond his statement too - and find a bitter old man who would love to blame everything on women from Eve on... how about that for focusing on the theoretical 'roots' of the statement. Roots don't go much further back in the Catholic Church than the old Eve/Apple/Snake fable...

Most anyone's experience in high school would beg to differ. It is not a "small" part, by any means.

Your attempts to rhetorically diminish the influence of finding a mate on human behavior are getting more and more desperate...

And most of us have going beyond high school mating rituals shag...

And that plays right into the point the Archbishop is raising. Can you see how?

The fact that food gathering was our major defining factor for many thousands of years has what to do with the fact that you actually think that mating is THE defining factor for what - the last 3,000 years. A lot of history took place before we got around to looking beyond dinner. And you might think that mating moved into and has remained has the number one defining factor - but I really think you need to show that shag -

If anything money has replaced food as our defining factor. Things fall into place after getting money - just like they did with food - power, mates, housing. The hunt for the almighty dollar defines us far more than our quest for the perfect mate.

Well, shag - I can look beyond his statement too - and find a bitter old man who would love to blame everything on women from Eve on... how about that for focusing on the theoretical 'roots' of the statement. Roots don't go much further back in the Catholic Church than the old Eve/Apple/Snake fable...

Please read the archbishop’s autobiography and tell me he was a bitter old man. I think he was the most joyful man who ever won an Emmy – yes, that’s right, a Catholic archbishop had a nation-wide TV show and won Emmys for it. It was called “Life is Worth Living” and it painted a wonderful, beautiful image of life and woman because it was one based on reality. The only thing bitter and old I see is the look on the face of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her feminist witches who reject the reality of their own femininity. Here’s another quote from the archbishop on women. It is far more young and beautiful than the face of modern woman on magazine covers:

“The very emergence of woman into the political, economic, and social life of the world suggests that the world needs a continuity which she alone can supply; for while man is more closely related to things, she is the protector of life. She cannot look at a limping dog, a flower overhanging a vase, without her heart and mind and soul going out to it, as if to bear witness that she has been appointed by God as the very guardian and custodian of life. Although contemporary literature associates her with frivolity and allurement, her instincts find repose only in the preservation of vitality. Her very body commits her to the drama of existence and links her in some way with the rhythm of the cosmos. In her arms, life takes its first breath, and in her arms, life wants to die. The world most often used by soldiers dying on the battlefields is ‘Mother.’”

And the Catholic Church has a far richer history than you seem to be aware of. In fact, it teaches that the greatest mere human that ever walked the earth was a woman – and she was God’s mother. Here’s a quote from Pope Benedict XVI from a couple days ago on the matter:

“In reality, ‘Theotókos’ [the title of Mary as Mother of God] is an audacious title. A woman is Mother of God. One might say: how is this possible? God is eternal, he is the Creator. We are creatures, we are in time: how could a human person be Mother of God, of the Eternal, given that we are all in time, we are all creatures? …As we know well, Aristotelian philosophy tells us that between God and man there exists only a non-reciprocal relationship. Man exists in reference to God, but God, the Eternal, is in himself, he does not change: he cannot have this kind of relationship today and another kind tomorrow. He remains in himself, he does not have a relationship 'ad extra,' he does not have a relationship with me. It is a very logical reflection, but it is a reflection that makes us despair. With the incarnation, with the coming of the ‘Theotókos,’ this has changed radically, because God has drawn us into himself, and God in himself is relationship and makes us participate in his interior relationship.”

It was through woman that God becomes man. Furthermore, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through entering the Church – which is described in a very feminine way: the bride of Christ.

Well, shag - I can look beyond his statement too

There is a difference between looking beyond the statement to the rationale underlying it and presumptuously and opportunistically distorting the statement to fit your own worldview.

One approach looks to discern the truth and one looks to subvert the truth.

The fact that food gathering was our major defining factor for many thousands of years has what to do with the fact that you actually think that mating is THE defining factor for what - the last 3,000 years. A lot of history took place before we got around to looking beyond dinner. And you might think that mating moved into and has remained has the number one defining factor - but I really think you need to show that shag -

If anything money has replaced food as our defining factor. Things fall into place after getting money - just like they did with food - power, mates, housing. The hunt for the almighty dollar defines us far more than our quest for the perfect mate.


In response to this:
...that plays right into the point the Archbishop is raising. Can you see how?
You could have just said "no" and saved yourself the time it took to write that pointless diatribe. ;)

It is very telling that you have gone from simply claiming that attracting a mate is not the defining factor of human behavior (even though no one was ever making that argument) to trying to claim that money is the defining factor. The argument that any one specific thing is the defining factor of human behavior is foolish and irrational.

Things fall into place after getting money
+1:D

My ambition was to become a millionaire first.:)
Now I own property and equipment that are the means of production.;)
I come and go as I please and do whatever I want.
My managers do a great job running the show.
Money is harder to come by than a mate
and better to have first.:p

My ambition was to become a millionaire first.:)

Toward what end?

Money is only a means to an end. Amassing money is not, in and of itself, generally a motivating factor.

Is money and (the trappings/security it buys) a means of attracting and keeping a mate (among other things)?

Toward what end?

Money is only a means to an end. Amassing money is not, in and of itself, generally a motivating factor.

Is money and (the trappings/security it buys) a means of attracting and keeping a mate (among other things)?Ask John Kerry. ;)

Money makes happiness a lot more possible.

So money is a means towards happiness.

My parents were middle class.

When I was a kid I wanted to be rich but didn't have a career in mind.

My path was set though I didn't realize it at the time at the age of 15 when I put my dad's car into a ditch and dented the fender.
I took it out joyriding with our scout troop at some loathsomely tedious 2 hr mass.

My 13 yr old brother and I fixed it ourselves and bought a compressor and started doing bodywork and painting the neighbors cars in our parents garage. We were very talented handicrafters and that all led to our current success.

Our business model is ACME from the bugs bunny/ roadrunner cartoon.
We buy used large capital equipment at 1% to 10% of the cost of new
and make it work.
So serendipity (a fortunate accident) is my middle name.

I married late, my wife didn't marry me for my money
(I didn't let her know until I had gotten to know her)

and I've legally protected myself should things turn sour.

I'm helping people and leaving my mark on this planet which will be around long after I'm gone and that is a lot more than most people can say.

There's some real satisfaction :) in that.

Money makes happiness a lot more possible.

So money is a means towards happiness.

What do you define as happiness? Having a spouse seems to be part of that, but what is, in your estimation, "the good life"?

money as a means to happiness doesn't necessarily mean that someone simply marries you for your money. Maybe it is simply the security it provides, which can be reflected both directly and indirectly in countless ways. The traditional view of wanting a "provider" and looking for a good provider as a spouse is one aspect of that. It doesn't simply have to be cheap materialism (in the economic sense).

BTW, it is great that you have found work that you love and find rewarding that is also lucrative. We should all be so lucky...

There is a difference between looking beyond the statement to the rationale underlying it and presumptuously and opportunistically distorting the statement to fit your own worldview.

One approach looks to discern the truth and one looks to subvert the truth.

However, unless you are the archbishop, or could read his mind, your statements regarding 'what he meant' are a presumptive as mine, actually more so. You are distorting his statement to fit your own 'worldview' shag. If you take his statement at face value, and not inject some sort of 'underlying, known only to the faithful' meaning as you are doing, it matches what I stated. That women are the cause for how history has played out... That is very clear in his statement. Your extrapolated explanation has to go into the realm of 'look between the lines'. You can't do that shag - that isn't good 'argument'.

It is very telling that you have gone from simply claiming that attracting a mate is not the defining factor of human behavior (even though no one was ever making that argument) to trying to claim that money is the defining factor. The argument that any one specific thing is the defining factor of human behavior is foolish and irrational.

Weren't you, and the archbishop, and federali the ones stating that history has followed women's behavior. That our past, and our present, and obviously our future, seems to be dependent on the way women decide to behave, present themselves, develop their character? Did I miss something in the discussion Shag - I was lowering myself to your expectations - you seemed to want one thing - one deciding factor - finding a mate - as the 'main' impetus for human change and behavior. So, what is it now shag - just the most important - or maybe not even that - top 3? Top 10?

What do you define as happiness? Having a spouse seems to be part of that, but what is, in your estimation, "the good life"?

money as a means to happiness doesn't necessarily mean that someone simply marries you for your money. Maybe it is simply the security it provides, which can be reflected both directly and indirectly in countless ways. The traditional view of wanting a "provider" and looking for a good provider as a spouse is one aspect of that. It doesn't simply have to be cheap materialism (in the economic sense).

BTW, it is great that you have found work that you love and find rewarding that is also lucrative. We should all be so lucky...

Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot :p LOL!

To me happiness is living like a prince.

Happiness is where people say Yes Sir!

Happiness is listening to Mozart and Beethoven symphonies at loud volumes.

Happiness is having very deep pockets and paying almost no interest.

Happiness is paying key employees hefty bonuses at Christmas time(up to 40% of salary)

and having them work for you like they are the owners.

Happiness is a spouse who loves me.

Happiness is having imagination.

Happiness is being talented smart and clever.

Happiness is holding all the cards without having to play them.

Money is freedom.

Without money you're stuck and you can't do anything.

People always say if they had the money they could do what they wanted.

When you get past academics and get some money you'll better know what I mean.:p

However, unless you are the archbishop, or could read his mind, your statements regarding 'what he meant' are a presumptive as mine, actually more so.

Not so much, but it is nice to see that you are admitting that your statements are presumptive. ;)

There is only one basic rationale that makes sense in regards to the statement of the Archbishop. You are intentionally ignoring that rationale and distorting it to fit into your cynical view of gender roles and men in general.

That is not only presumptuous but intellectually arrogant and exceedingly close minded.

When you get past academics and get some money you'll better know what I mean.:p

I hope so. But I just graduated in May and the job market still stinks...