~ archived since 2018 ~

Progressive feminists seek common ground and rational discussion with a Catholic priest

robert32907

April 24, 2013

7 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Progressive feminists seek common ground and rational discussion with a Catholic priest
Author	robert32907
Upvotes	7
Comments	46
Date	April 24, 2013 12:16 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1d06ns/progressive-feminists-seek-common-ground-and-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/progressive-feminists-seek-common-ground-and.1611225 https://theredarchive.com/post/1611225

Comments

[–]Mikeychan8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oldcatfish6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aussiehank2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341120 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan-4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, sure, I was a little snarky, but you were, too. And I don't think that that's outside the realm of civility.

YetAnotherCommenter on the other hand was ~~not~~ (Edit: He was). He was ~~just~~ giving the catholic church some in my eyes well deserved criticism. If you don't like that, feel free to defend the catholic church, I get that, but don't attack him just for opening his mouth.

And by the way, I write more for "men's rights" than any blogger out there, bar none.

I don't give a shit. And neither should you.

I don't happen to think it's especially productive to foment hatred for Catholicism on this site.

That's like saying we're 'formenting hatred against feminism'. No! We are critiquing feminism and we are critiquing Catholicism.

We are a somewhat diverse movement. We have libertarians, progressives, socialists, christians, moslems, non-religious and anti-religious people here. And I don't think that's a problem. We need to learn to tolerate each other, and accept that others will critizise us.

[–]PierceHarlan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theozoph2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think what raised Pierce heckles was probably that last line about enemies, and I simply agree with him that the constant hostility toward religion (which also annoys me when it's toward Islam) is getting tiresome, and often feels quite juvenile.

Yes, there is no reason to avoid criticizing religion as a system of belief, even with the occasional derisive comment. But since the traditional system they championed was at least balancing gender obligations, I don't understand why MRA's should consider them "enemies", or support the vulgar and distasteful feminist attacks FEMEN members are notorious for.

That priest has my sympathy and respect. The odious cunts attacking him haven't. And since we're probably the next ones on FEMEN's list, I think even atheist MRA's should refrain from schadenfreude. We'll soon be in his place.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I simply agree with him that the constant hostility toward religion (which also annoys me when it's toward Islam) is getting tiresome, and often feels quite juvenile.

I agree this can happen. I too would rather disagreement with religion being made via informed critique rather than by 'witty' memes and the like.

But since the traditional system they championed was at least balancing gender obligations, I don't understand why MRA's should consider them "enemies"...

Because even with balanced obligations, the gender system sucked. By advocating the system that screws men over, they run counter to the goals of the MRM. Just because they are consistent, rather than hypocritical like the feminist movement, about this system, doesn't make them our allies.

or support the vulgar and distasteful feminist attacks FEMEN members are notorious for.

I agree, FEMEN suck. But I am averse to Enemy Of My Enemy reasoning, especially in this case.

[–]theozoph2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because even with balanced obligations, the gender system sucked.

There is no system which would be perfect, and certainly none other which could have given us the civilization, wealth and comfort we currently enjoy. Just because technology made it obsolete, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary before the industrial (and medical) revolution.

All in all, traditional systems were pretty good at doing what they do best, which is to preserve the social peace. I urge you to look into anthropology books, you'll find out that life in primitive societies is often quite brutal, especially for men competing in an all-out war for women. By their 30's, it is quite common for women to have had 3 or 4 husbands, each one murdered by the next.

The institutions of marriage, monogamy and separate gender roles didn't appear by chance. They answered a much-desired need for peace and harmony.

By advocating the system that screws men over, they run counter to the goals of the MRM.

It doesn't, really. That perception comes from mixing traditional values with a legal framework wrought by feminist advocacy, which gives us the worst of both worlds. In a traditional society, you would be schackled by obligations, but at least you'd get something out of them, in the form of familial authority and a stable family life.

Of course, asking men to uphold these obligations in a situation where women aren't beholden to theirs is the summum of stupidity.

So yeah, at the moment I agree that they aren't allies we should want, except in very specific and limited cases. But if we want to change their views, instead of calling them "enemies", we should tell them how their advocacy of "manning-up" (which is more a Protestant thing, apparently) is just more gynocentric male-shaming, and that instead they should concentrate on telling women to stop destroying their families, and quit being such un-Christian boot-lickers for their female constituency.

But I am averse to Enemy Of My Enemy reasoning, especially in this case.

Honestly, I don't see Catholics (or just Christians) doing half the damage feminists have wrought on men. While their cause isn't ours, at least they don't actively hate men, or engage in blatant discrimination against us. Putting them on equal footing is complete overkill, IMHO.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is no system which would be perfect, and certainly none other which could have given us the civilization, wealth and comfort we currently enjoy. Just because technology made it obsolete, doesn't mean it wasn't necessary before the industrial (and medical) revolution.

I absolutely agree with you that the gender system was once a necessity. I am entirely on your side there.

However, like you said, it is obsolete in this current age. Just because it was once necessary doesn't mean it is immune from present criticism.

All in all, traditional systems were pretty good at doing what they do best, which is to preserve the social peace. I urge you to look into anthropology books, you'll find out that life in primitive societies is often quite brutal, especially for men competing in an all-out war for women. By their 30's, it is quite common for women to have had 3 or 4 husbands, each one murdered by the next.

Oh, I absolutely agree that the gender system was terrible for men in those societies. These societies were not pleasant places.

It doesn't, really. That perception comes from mixing traditional values with a legal framework wrought by feminist advocacy, which gives us the worst of both worlds. In a traditional society, you would be schackled by obligations, but at least you'd get something out of them, in the form of familial authority and a stable family life.

I agree that the current situation, for men, often is just the costs of traditionalism without any of the benefits. But the solution to that isn't to try and restore traditionalism so as to accrue the benefits... rather, the solution is to get rid of traditionalism, so as to remove the costs.

And yes, when feminists end up backing traditionalism, they absolutely should be called out and opposed.

Honestly, I don't see Catholics (or just Christians) doing half the damage feminists have wrought on men.

Well, I'd argue that the Augustinian fixation on the evil-animalistic-brutishness of male sexuality is a pretty strong underpinning of certain kinds of cultural misandry.

You may be right about who has inflicted the most harm on men per se, at least in the modern age. But historically speaking, plenty of horrible ideas have been promoted by Christianity. Now, I wouldn't say that Christianity is actively against men per se - but still, we can't ignore that Christianity is probably the most influential belief system in Western civilization. Feminism hasn't been around for very long, relative to Christianity.

And even if Christians aren't harming men like the feminist movement, there are other reasons to not want to ally with Christianity (non Mens-Rights-related reasons).

I can understand if you'd disagree. Thanks for the polite discussion, by the way. Its appreciated.

[–]theozoph2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not a problem, even though my Church-hating days are behind me now, I totally support everyone's right to have a negative opinion about any religion and their practioners. We basically agree on everything you've said above.

As I've grown "wiser", and more knowledgeable about various religions, I've come to the conclusion that some form of religion is sadly necessary for a healthy society, but that none of the existing ones would ever "fit" me. Which makes me a weird kind of atheist, respectfull of religion but unable to believe in any...

Ideally, I'd like a spiritual practice that would be able to evolve with the times, the way scientific inquiry adapts to new discoveries. The problem is that a "good" spiritual practice would necessarily involve a highly elitist constituency (the same way research only involves the highest qualified scientists), which means either it would never be able to reach global status, or that only a highly debased version of it would (eg. Buddhism).

Too bad, I guess.

And I return the appreciation.

[–]louis_xiv420 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]louis_xiv421 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CanadianJesus-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CanadianJesus-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CanadianJesus1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I am saying is that not all religions nominally embrace faith. Quite a few argue for unique personal experiences of the divine... now, wether they are true or not is irrelevant, the point is that they aren't the same as faith.

Scientology and Asatru, for example. Most forms of neopaganism, actually, don't demand embracing anything on faith (i.e. belief in the absense of something that can be considered a form of evidence, at least from the believer's perspective).

Remember that the centrality of "faith" to religion is principally a product of the West's history with Christianity, which is a principally Orthodoxic religion (most religions are principally Orthopraxic IIRC). Not only that, but the Reformation and Luther's doctrine of Sola Fide elevated faith to an extreme that is beyond any other religion I know.

If you strip anything that requires faith from a religion, isn't then just a philosophy?

Not necessarily, since "religion" has a strong social element to it. Philosophy does not necessarily.

Let me make it clear I am an atheist and with respect to the vast majority of religions I am decidedly antireligious. I am not trying to defend religion here... just to perform some conceptual separation.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Anus Dei is coming" LOL rewrite the text, the Anus of God is coming as foretold by the new prophet.

Anus of God, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Anus of God, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Anus of God, you who take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.

[–]sillymod1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link