Just today Time magazine put out an article on internet trolling. But, alas, as expected, Time called it basically an alt-right phenomenon. In doing so, Time magazine, you just proved why there is (and should be) a men's rights movement, a MGTOW movement, a Trump movement. The MSM cannot see their bias.
I have been watching a lot of feminist fail videos on YouTube - they are hilarious.
Now, I don't think God wants me to give in to all my indignation. It's not about whether someone deserves to be rebuked for their bad, erroneous, harmful idea. It's about God not wanting me to act shabbily. He wants better from me. This is why I try to behave civilly. Not because people aren't stupid and potentially dangerous, but because God wants me to act well. I agree with men's rights people (generally), but do not approve of some of their actions. I would think some 'feminists' would be of the same mind with respect to some feminist agitators.
That said, leftism in all its forms is dangerous in that it is Marxist. If left unchecked, it would bring us back to Stalinism. So we are not talking about chaque un a son gout and que sera sera. The quest to reform everything leads nowhere but to mass exterminations and gulags.
Being now in my forties, and even though I am not a work-a-day guy right now, over these forty years I have rubbed shoulders enough with women and 'men' who enable their bad behavior to see how pervasive feminist-Marxism is. Seeing how many of my jobs have been in church and quasi-church institutions, my observations mostly pertain to them and, obviously, my interest. I don't care as much what society at large does. I am who I am because I care about the Church more than the world.
So, we need to bear my definition in mind. Feminists attempt to confuse people by saying that feminism (as lived out by them) is about gender equality. Feminism as a definition was about gender equality, despite the tendency to confuse equality with sameness. This does not mean that actual feminists are deeply driven by equality. Indeed, they are not interested at all in the inequality of men in university, in jail, in dangerous jobs, in suicide, in the various diseases in which men are over-represented. Nor do they seem to care nearly as much about the women in China, Iran and Somalia as they do in New York, and in ivy league universities.
Feminism is not about equality. With respect to militant feminists, it is an expression of discontentment, a woman's dissatisfaction with her life, an attempt to blame men for the state of life in which she finds herself. We all do equivalent things. I may blame certain policies and tendencies rather than my own limited ability for my lack of success; I may blame these things rather than just the fact that I have been unlucky. Black people can blame racism, poor people can blame the one-percent, women can blame patriarchy. Things are harder for people who are not born wealthy. That is true. I had to work a part- or full-time job the entire time I was in grad school. I was no Gilmore Girl, whose wealthy grandparents paid for me to go to Harvard, or wherever. (My daughters have been watching it with me in the room.) It wasn't impossible for me to get my PhD, but it was harder. If I had been black or a woman it might have been easier, since there seems to be more bursaries for both of those groups. But as people will tell you, you can get caught up in the obstacles or try and overcome them, realizing that you will be stronger in the end. I know I am a better writer, thinker because things have been harder for me. I use my time more wisely than the wealthy because I cannot afford to waste it.
I am reminded of a Eminem song:
People don't usually come back this way
From a place that was dark as I was in
Just to get to this place
Now let these words be like a switch blade to a haters rib cage
And let it be known that from this day forward
I wanna just say thanks cause your hate is what gave me the strength
So let em bic's raise cause I came with 5'9" but I feel like I'm 6'8″!
He must have written this for me because I am literally 5'9''!!! The point is, we all have set backs - some fewer and some more than others. Even rich people have their set-backs - weird families, mental illness, addictions, abuse...
I can't dwell on the unfairness done to me. Again, that's shabby, says God.
So, that's the setting. Here's some of my experience with feminism in the Catholic workforce.
I will focus on two hilarious instances, but there is a general thing too: in Catholicism, men are prone to act as "white knights." Now, while it sounds good to defend the weak and innocent, when it comes to their interventions for women, it is not about the innocent, it is about giving women a leg up. I have never been in a work situation where women were being harassed, sexually or otherwise. So what are their white knights doing? Let's see if my illustrations help.
1. I worked for a place where the boss was constantly coddling the female employees and giving the males no slack whatever. He tended to view girls as innocent and boys and victimizers. He focused on the foibles associated with boys and ignored those associated with girls. It wasn't sexual because he was old, and not only old but outstandingly ethical (I mean he was consciously determined to be a good person). And yet I criticize him!? The fact is, you can mean well and yet actually do bad. This is why feminism's effects in the Church are so hard to spot - the best people are the ones doing its bad work. Example. Where I worked there was a dress code. One girl flaunted it almost daily with low tops. I wore sandals. Both things were against the code. But who do you think got called on it?
2. In another work place I had a dispute with a female worker. It was immediately obvious that she was being treated as the victim and I the aggressor. Why? Because women are good and men are bad. I honestly say that it was the woman who did wrong, but I was being treated like I was the guilty one because I called her on it. What white knights don't realize is that they are the most misogynistic of all, because they believe that women are too weak to be treated equally. This is the kind of feminism the Catholic Church makes a home for. It is the sexism of low expectations.
So what? What's so bad about a world that treats women well? It's not well, it's better. A world where a type of person is treated better is a bad one. It is one that engenders resentment. The destructiveness of inequality is the reason why we have rule of law. Law means all people are under the same set of obligations. Law is a mechanism to ensure peace. If people do not feel that their system is just, they resort to other avenues for satisfaction. Whether you are talking about white people, certain aristocratic families, a privileged priestly caste, wealthy people, or women, inequality whether in law or in practice engenders social discord.
It may seem good that we have people in favorable positions for certain reasons, but it is always destructive. If black people and aboriginals are given a pass on certain matters, they will not live up to social expectations on any matter. And, they will be resented. It may seem like a good idea to make up for past wrongs, but it is not. So too with women. Women who are given a pass because of so-called past injustices (always spoken of by people with absolutely no training in history or philosophy so as to know what they are talking about) will not behave as well as those who are expected to behave better. It is just human nature. Expectation is the foundation of good behavior. If a woman knows she can get away with shabby behavior by referencing 'the patriarchy,' she will not push herself as hard as if she had no easier way out. We all know this in family life: when someone is expected to fail, they will. When they have an easy out, they will give 50% of their effort rather than closer to 100 %.
Again, the Church does this. Yes, the Church is a mess for many reasons, but this one seems more easily prevented than some other endemic faults. Priests feel guilt for the man-only priesthood (but still, nevertheless, cling to all the privileges therein). But this isn't the only reason they give women a preferential option. The first reason is the reason why we have women at all: they are sexually cherished. Secondly, priests have a soft spot for them because they are missing wives. These men need care too: to be loved and to love.
But the two cases I gave from my own life above did not involve priests, but laymen. In much of what I am talking about, priests and laymen are the same: sexuality and affection is 99% of the reason why they treat women better than they treat other men. What's so bad about that? you ask again. Once again, it doesn't matter whether your intentions are good or bad, treating people unequally is wrong and engenders resentment and encourages people to look for justice outside of the system. If they doubt the justice of the system, they will begin to work against it. Is this good for a parish, a school, a company?
Let's bear something in mind here: the reason why men treat women well is sexual, always sexual, but, of course, not just sexual. I find I lose many people here. If you can't buy this, you won't buy much of what I am going to be saying and have said. Sexuality is fundamental. I am not saying the men treat women well because they want to have sex with them consciously. Part of it is because the man is also hardwired to protect kin (mothers, daughters, nieces, etc.) and this translates into other people's babies and children too. (The reason why pedophilia is unhealthy is because here a man confuses his sexual drive with his basic genetic drive to protect his kind.) In other words, men are nice to women as a basic biological strategy for procreation. Also, men are more apt to be territorial with other men for breeding rights. Of course, as with every part of human nature, morality is about curbing and directing our actions and desires to the good, not in order to breed more widely. Christian morality tells me I should be monogamous. Nature does not. Nature wants me to breed more widely. Which should I follow? But we tend to be nicer to women than men because of biology, not because of morality. So why do we not give heed to that? Being holy means that our will is spontaneously drawn to the good (to monogamy, to treating men and women equally). But we are only made holy by concerted effort. I treat women better than men because of nature. I should treat them equally well because of morality. In other words, white knight syndrome is sexuality-driven, not morality driven.
And then there are certain cases of white knight syndrome that are especially heinous. These are the result of psycho-sexual malformation. Take a look at this video. It is such a sad example of this.
This is one of the most disgusting videos I have ever seen. He is so damaged. He must be to allow himself to be treated in such a way, by such a seething, condescending woman, who is obviously damaged too. I can only begin to speculate on what their lives have been like up to this point, especially in childhood.
At this point it would take too much time for me to discuss why men and women act the way they do, treat each other the way they do, expect each other to be certain ways. Let me just sum-up with this: men are expected not to be men. Their virtue consists in action, leadership, decisiveness. but we are taught that all these things are wrong. We are taught that we should be passive, followers, and wishy-washy. Feminists find the virtues of men threatening (as they should) because it means that men are better at life in the world. Thus, we see there is a rather funny interplay here between nature and morality. That's also too big a topic to get into in the here and now.
In the end, white knight Catholics want to balance the playing field for women, because they feel sorry for them, they do not believe women are strong enough without their help to keep up, they want to have sex with them, they want to feel magnanimous (which is sexual too). But are any of these things Catholic?
Liberalism is as a whole motivated by these things. It makes sense when women are leftist. It makes little sense when men are. Leftism is fueled by feminine virtues, perspectives, and feelings. It makes sense that women should want to set up a nanny-state - women are maternal! When men want to, I am very leery of their intentions.
I leave you with another infuriating bit of cuckoldry. You will never meet another more deluded, wounded person, or perhaps a person than whom there is no other more nefarious and pandering (like Hillary). The condescension is so thick it makes me angry! Watch the swears, but take it away, Undoomed:
Pay special attention to this idiot's ideas about what is masculinity and what is not.
While reviewing this tonight, another thought came to mind that I should have mentioned.
Another reason why Catholic men are particularly prone to be white knights is that they view sexuality in a negative light. It is easy for a Christian to have a negative view of sex. I have studied the history of the Church's view of sex - believe me on this one (not that I think you doubt me here). Therefore, the less sexuality the better, these knights think. Since women are not nearly as sexual (as these white knight define sexuality), they see men as intrinsically libidinous and women as proxy-Virgin Marys, in need of their protection. Women are less sexual, they say - which is false and actually androcentric. According to these knights, men are seething masses of sexuality, but these white knight alone are not, and so women need them to stand up for them against the bad men.
But aren't I contradicting myself, having said above that these white knights want to have sex with the women they are favoring? Sure, that is, if you have failed to understand everything I have so far written! Remember, sex is in everything; it's not merely conscious.
These Catholic white knights love virgins, they love the idea of weak women, they love the idea of men being bad and lascivious. Though they will admit to none of this and be terribly indignant at my accusation!