Men really do see half naked women as 'objects', scientists claim -RUBBISH!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4636689/Men-really-do-see-half-naked-women-as-objects-scientists-claim.html


Warning: Activist research by feminists again. This is so stupid my brain is starting to hurt. Listen to this drivel.


"But what the brain scans show is that they are reacting to this photograph as people react to objects. It is as if they are not fully human." 

They show pictures of women on paper and men's brains computed pictures as objects... well surprise, pictures are objects morons! That is exactly what one would expect when showing men objects. Pictures are not even partially human so why should are brains register it as such. Indeed, if women are seeing photos as something other than inadimate objects; that is a cause for concern. Is it reasonably out of the realm of common sense that a man's brain would recognize that the images being projected are not real and then re-categorize them as objects rather than human beings? Are we to think so little of modern technology reared men that we honestly believe their brains have not adapted to differentiate between flesh and blood and simple images portraying flesh and blood? Another issue is that of where are the womens results... like I said, maybe they are the ones with the problem if female brains CAN'T tell the difference between an image of a person and a real person and switch accordingly.  


Perhaps that is why science and abstract thought such as law, philosophy and science is dominated by men. Our brains can actually differentiate the differences. This is why God set up the family hierarchy such as He has. 


On a purely scientific level, what is the definition of "With men, who were known to have sexist tendencies" mean? I have yet to see such subjective, politically charged words used outside a womyn's studies department; let alone in a science lab. For all my good Catholic friends that don't connect the two, this is how sexist tendencies looks.


"the men He assigned all the affairs of the city, all the business of the marketplace, courts, council-chambers, armies and all the rest. A woman cannot throw a spear or hurl a javelin, but she can take up the distaff, weave cloth, and manage the household. She cannot give an opinion in council, but she can give her opinion in the household. Often, indeed, whatever her husband knows of household matters, she knows better. She cannot manage the city well, but she can raise children well, which are our greatest treasures." (St. John Chrysostom On Marriage and Family Life p. 96)


More scientific evidence as to why feminism is wrong and the Holy Catholic Church is right I'd say.

Piss on publicly funded then!

I've listened rather dryly to the ranting about the ethical issues regarding the Canadian Federal/Provincial Governments funding the separate Catholic School System based on the spurious argument that public money should not go to religiously based enterprises. Fair enough, but we must be consistent. If we are not to fund religious enterprises, we cannot fund anti religious enterprises either. For example this "art" by the Chinese government. None can say they're religiously motivated... or are they?

Clearly this is a work to offend every Christian who sees it. And although it is not Canadian, it shows what a secular government can get away with when it wants to make a religious/anti-religious statement. It simply funds a depraved artist to produce disgusting art that blasphemes religious iconography.

The question at hand is not who's religion is being funded to the exclusion of others; it's the question of whose message a government will fund in general (for me it's if the religion we're funding right and true). If a government is to stay out of religious enterprises financially, they will have to restrict grants to the arts, film, radio and television as well as education. This seems fair.

A second issue is that a silent government is a vocal government when it comes to religion. It becomes an arbiter of what is allowed to be discussed and publicly professed. Thus we must ask, is that government silent when it defunds religious education but still funds artists, film makers and television producers who make biased and demeaning pieces on religion with no forum for public debate on the specious argument that religion is too controversial to discuss? I rather think not.


I think if these folks were to loose their funding for their atheist books and "irreverent" works do to religious content, the protest that a government should not fund religious enterprises would evaporate overnight.

Just a thought...

But What If He Beats Her?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394711/More-women-convicted-battering-men-domestic-violence-soars-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I have heard this argument time and again in every discussion I have had on Catholic wives submitting to their husbands. Over and over again the old feminist victim lines of rape and violence against women by their men are used as an excuse to get out of their divinely ordained role as wife. The problem with these arguments are two fold:

1) It demeans men as a group. It buys into the feminist lie that given authority and power over a family, a man will brutalize and assault them with it. The God ordained relationship of Husband over wife becomes a relationship of probable oppressive tyrant over a traumatized and powerless victim, rather than a union with a defined and healthy hierarchy for the benefit and stability of the family. Then women wonder why men "don't want to commit." Men want to commit, they don't want to constantly compete with fictional phantoms and apologize for acts of brutality they never committed with a woman that sees a violent rapist lurking in the recesses of her husbands soul! But I digress.

2) Women are the more violent sex in domestic situations. The linked article is only the tip of the iceberg. As Steve Moxon points out in his rigorously referenced book the Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play, and in society, domestic violence is a 50/50 ratio. Moreover, in every category women do more physical damage to men than the other way round (chapter 10).  Indeed, Rape statistics are ruthlessly deconstructed to reveal the outright lies perpetrated against men about the true number of rapes and how they're used to conceal the plague of false rape claims (chapter 11). For another great source on these issues, refer to the massive book Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men by Young and Nathanson.

Men are being scientifically shown to be the more passive and non violent component in heterosexual relationships. It seems unlikely, given the empirical evidence, that is safe to submit to a woman; not the other way round.

When one does the research one almost groans when they read the apologies of Catholic Apologists and proponents of Theology of the Body and "equal Submission in Marriage" go on about respecting and tenderness to the weaker vessel in a "non threatening manner" and how a "real man" knows how to differ to his wife. Meanwhile 76% of divorces are filed by women and only 2% are over domestic violence. The rest are over irreconcilable differences, whatever that means. Sadly Catholics are in lock step with the secular world on this feminist initiative. But these fallacies and lies keep coming up time and again as though it were a reality. It seems the Church, on average, has bought into this lie that men are naturally violent and cannot be trusted to have "Authority over their wives in all things" as St. Augustine says.

The problem is not so much with Catholic men as much as Catholic women. Who wants to marry a revolutionary always challenging and undercutting ones's legitimate authority? These women are not complicated and challenging, they are self-centred and violent. They need to stop getting relationship guidance from Vogue and start reading St. John Chrysostom's 'How to Choose a Wife'.

"He [God] divided our life into these two parts, and gave the more necessary and important to the man, but the lesser and inferior part to the woman. In this way He arranged that we should admire the man more because we need his service more, and that because the woman has a humbler form of service she would not rebel against her husband." (St. John Chrysostom On Marriage and Family Life p. 96-7)

Anti-woman or anti-feminist? To ask the question is to answer it...

Tradition isn't Trendy it's True: So Called Womyn Priests

Article: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/12/137102746/women-priests-defy-the-church-at-the-altar

"The audience turned to watch as the women made their way down the aisle, beaming like brides. The two-and-a-half-hour ceremony ended with Holy Communion — the moment they'd been waiting for. Each woman performed the rites for the first time as a priest, breaking bread and serving wine as tears of joy flowed down their faces."

I had to laugh because for all the ceremonials, that was all that was happening! These people's supporters can't even get the theology of the Eucharist right. But then they can't even get the concept of obedience right either, so I might as well not start listing what else they don't understand...

I'll share a bit (ok at length) of Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Dr.s Young & Nathanson. During a critique of the feminist documentary 'Veil'‘, “Later on in Veil, the narrator says that "tradition dictates priests be men. Women don't resemble Christ. A theologian replies: 'By that reasoning, all priests should be bearded Jewish fishermen.'" This glib rejoined trivializes the discussion. Superficially, men clearly "resemble" the earthly man, Jesus of Nazareth, more closely than women do. Of interest to theologians in a tradition that acknowledges divine will behind creation of two sexes, however, is that they do so ontologically, not just physically, ethnically, or professionally. Besides, the same tradition says that both men and women are created in the image of God and thus "resemble" the divine saviour, the Christ, in whom "there is no male nor female." That Catholic theologians would attach importance to distinctions of this kind might seem preposterous to outsiders and self-serving and heretical to some insiders, but no understanding of the controversy is possible unless we take both sides on their own terms." (p.85-6)

The problem is that even when trying to represent Catholic teaching sympathetically, people fall off the rails at every level. The passage referenced in the above quote is about the body of Christ the Church, not our functions within that Body. For the Scripture also says that each of us has a different function such as the hands, the feet etc. (I happen to be the fist). the discussion is more complex than even these authors wish to admit. And Dr. Katherine Young is a theologian herself, Anglican by persuasion.

The mass is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ as well as the last supper. We are to meditate on these mysteries wilst at mass. A male voice is more efficacious in transporting oneself into those supernatural realities it’s true. But the Genesis account provides that Man was created first, and after the fall his wife is to be subject to him. This must be looked at in relation to St. Paul’s great mystery where the Church is the bride of Christ. And further in St. Peter’s epistle on wives being clearly subject to their husbands. This all becomes rather bothersome as Clerical marriage is always fussed to this discussion and only the Latin Rite has Priestly celibacy. So how is a married woman priest of the Ukrainian Catholic Church to submit to her Husband and her Bishop/Patriarch at the same time? Two masters wot wot. The epistles go on to say wives are to be silent in the churches. Another severe regarding scripture and this issue is the bible is dictated by God according to the dogmatic pronouncement of Vatican I.

“Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the Sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles Themselves, by dictation of the Holy Spirit, transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand, have come down to us… Theses the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by the her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have delivered as such to the Church itself (can. Iv)” (Emphasis mine)

So we don’t get to say that such and such passage was just in those times, or they reflect those cultures. These have been gifted and passed to us as a patrimony from God himself!

The Sacred Tradition described by Vatican I also DICTATED by God is even more against the possibility of female participation based on the slight points I raised above. St Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechism would not even allow for men and women to sit together during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist! It goes on and I only have so much time.

I guess all this was to show that it really was just bread and wine being shared and women priests are not possible for informed Catholics to even entertain without rolling their eyes.

"Some Pigs Are More Equal Than Others"

ARTICLE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393381/Alabama-teacher-jailed-15-years-having-oral-sex-pupils-car.html

I found it incredibly, ok maybe predictably, surprising that there is a psychologist making excuses for the sexual abuse of children and young people under their care. A “blurring of the lines” supposedly. Supposedly? As we peruse down the mug shots, one observes the apologetic reference to their victims later age. My most bemused favorite, “Had the offence taken place a month later - after the teen graduated - she might not have been charged as he was no longer a full-time student and at the age of consent.” The clear minimizing of the sexual abuse of boys by the defenders of female privilege is worthy of the projectile vomit that ends in painful dry heaves. These are people put in a position of power and authority over impressionable and hormone charged young men. The acts are completely inexcusable yet they keep making a point of showing the age of the victims as pubescent. “SEE THEY’RE NOT PEDOPHILES! THEY HAVE EMOTIONAL ISSUES.” Rubbish. No wonder Young men have the highest suicide rate in western society... high suicide rates is what one would expect to observe in a group that has their sexual assault minimized and dismissed by the feminist regime.

One never sees this type of mad protectionism of clear sex offenders when it comes to the clerical sex abuse scandal. We hear they should be imprisoned and castrated; that the whole Church is a haven for pedophiles; that religion is a sham and therefore has no place in public discourse on morality… or anything for that matter. But insert women exercising their “Sex In The City” Sexual Revolutionary morality, and suddenly the rules change. It’s suddenly a minority of teachers and parents need not worry. The problem is not as wide spread as it appears. Women using institutional authority to entrap and rape boys is not as big an issue as it appears? Would anyone say this if these teachers were men and the victims girls? Where is the media hysteria (and by the way, this article is NOT hysterical, it's APOLOGETIC)and legislative and judicial knee jerk response to this blight on our society? Not forthcoming if not Catholic I expect.

It’s like my Family Lawyer told me about legal interactions, “what’s good for the goose must be good for the gander.” That is to say, the same principle must apply to any institutional sex offender(s) whether in the Catholic Church or the School System.

A Word on Conversion

"As soon as worldly people see that you wish to follow a devout life they aim a thousand darts of mockery and even detraction at you. The most malicious of them will slander your conversion as hypocrisy, bigotry, and trickery. . . .

"Philothea, all this is mere foolish, empty babbling. These people aren't interested in your health or welfare. 'If you were of the world, the world would love what is its own but because you are not of the world, therefore the world hates you,; says the Savior. We have seen gentlemen and ladies spend the whole night, even many nights one after another, playing chess or cards. Is there any concentration more absurd, gloomy, or depressing than this last? Yet worldly people don't say a word and the players' friends don't bother their heads about it.

"If we spend an hour in meditation or get up a little earlier than usual in the morning to prepare for Holy Communion, everyone runs for a doctor to cure us of hypochondria and jaundice. People can pass thirty nights in dancing and no one complains about it, but if they watch through a single Christmas night they cough and claim their stomach is upset the next morning. Does anyone fail to see that the world is an unjust judge, gracious and well disposed to its own children but harsh and rigorous towards the children of God?

"We can never please the world unless we lose ourselves together with it. It is so demanding that it can't be satisfied. "John came neither eating nor drinking," says the Savior, and you say, "He has a devil." "The Son of man came eating and drinking" and you say that he is "a Samaritan."

"It is true, Philothea, that if we are ready to laugh, play cards, or dance with the world in order to please it, it will be scandalized at us, and if we don't, it will accuse us of hypocrisy or melancholy. If we dress well, it will attribute it to some plan we have, and if we neglect our dress, it will accuse of us of being cheap and stingy. Good humor will be called frivolity and mortification sullenness. Thus the world looks at us with an evil eye and we can never please it. It exaggerates our imperfections and claims they are sins, turns our venial sins into mortal sins and changes our sins of weakness into sins of malice.

"'Charity is kind,' says Saint Paul, but the world on the contrary is evil. "Charity thinks no evil," but the world always thinks evil and when it can't condemn our acts it will condemn our intentions. Whether the sheep have horns or not and whether they are white or black, the wolf doesn't hesitate to eat them if he can.

"Whatever we do, the world will wage war on us. If we stay a long time in the confessional, it will wonder how we can have so much to say; if we stay only a short time, it will say we haven't told everything. It will watch all our actions and at a single little angry word it will protest that we can't get along with anyone. To take care of our own interests will look like avarice, while meekness will look like folly. As for the children of the world, their anger is called being blunt, their avarice economy, their intimate conversations lawful discussions. Spiders always spoil the good work of the bees.

"Let us give up this blind world, Philothea. Let it cry out at us as long as it pleases, like a cat that cries out to frighten birds in the daytime. Let us be firm in our purposes and unswerving in our resolutions. Perseverance will prove whether we have sincerely sacrificed ourselves to God and dedicated ourselves to a devout life. Comets and planets seem to have just about the same light, but comets are merely fiery masses that pass by and after a while disappear, while planets remain perpetually bright. So also hypocrisy and true virtue have a close resemblance in outward appearance but they can be easily distinguished from one another.

"Hypocrisy cannot last long but is quickly dissipated like rising smoke, whereas true virtue is always firm and constant. It is no little assistance for a sure start in devotion if we first suffer criticism and calumny because of it. In this way we escape the danger of pride and vanity, which are comparable to the Egyptian midwives whom a cruel Pharaoh had ordered to kill the Israelites' male children on the very day of their birth. We are crucified to the world and the world must be crucified to us. The world holds us to be fools; let us hold it to be mad."


— — Saint Frances de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life

One Easy Question to Befudle Homosexualists

The natural order should reflect the divine order. If the Church is right about homosexuality, there should be obvious effects that would lead us to the conclusion that this behaviour is harmful with empirical evidence.

Many people say that homophobia is from the Bible and is irrational. Is this the case? I would beg to differ. I ask a question that is completely secular, that is to say scientific, that is yet to be answered by pro homosexuality.

The question is:

What positive material benefit has the social acceptance of homosexuality given our culture?

This is a question that is yet to be answered in the culture wars. The reason is that the discussion is cut off before it even starts with the accusation of homophobia. This is irrelevant. If Homosexuality is a positive or even neutral behaviour we should have positive benefits in our culture.

Most people will say toleration is the social benefit. However that is not what the question asks. For tolerance is an immaterial/metaphysical benefit. And even if we are to accept tolerance as a benefit, we need evidence that it is in fact just that… beneficial. And that is the very evidence the question is asking for. E.g. we don’t tolerate incestuous relationships.

Some will try to sidestep the issue by saying tolerance is not acceptance. This is a false differentiation. For when Canada tolerated the sale, purveyance, purchase, viewing, disseminating and owning of child pornography was that not a sign that Canadian society accepted that as a matter of individual preference? And when Canada outlawed child porn in the mid eighties, did that not say we do not tolerate or accept such activities as a society? Of course it did. Pius the IX goes into this in his syllabus of errors

Many will say, but they love each other and are consenting adults. Again, this is not a physical benefit to society. And even so, we do not accept this as a standard either. Let us use the example of the incestuous relationship again. They are both consensual adults who “love” each other. How are they different under that standard? Or a polygamous relationship? Or a relationship with a very young person with an older one? We see problems with these right away. So that is not a standard under this question either.

Some will say, well there have been great artist, composers and scientists that have been homosexuals and contributed to our culture. This is true. And this is even material that can be physically measured. But the question was what has socially acceptance of homosexuality given our culture, not what have individual homosexuals given our culture, indeed, most of these contributions were made BEFORE social acceptance of homosexuality so don’t qualify even if we did include them.

You will also hear that people are born homosexuals and don’t have a choice. This is first wrong, as none has said this in the scientific community since the early 90’s and second the physiatrist that had homosexuality taken off the American list of mental disorders has released his own study that homosexuals can be successfully rehabilitated through therapy. But even if this were true it would not be a valid argument. What is I was born with the impulse to have sex with children? Would that justify social acceptance of pedophilia or child pornography? Or what is I was born with incestuous tendencies? Would that justify social acceptance of incest? Of course not!

So what are the positive material benefits that social acceptance of homosexuality given our culture?

The response you will get is very much like the look on the face of whomever you ask… shocked silence. And there is a reason for this. None has been required to ask the question of themselves or each other. If I had asked “what are the material benefits of the social acceptance of feminism or trade unionism to our culture?” I would receive a litany of responses. I may not agree that they are beneficial, but I would get them. Here we get an absolute blank stare…. Followed by an accusation of homophobia.

What would I accept as physical benefits of social acceptance of homosexuality to our culture? Has is increased the gross national product? Has it created more stable families? has it decreased the cases of sexually transmitted infections? has it increased the gross standard of living? has it decreased the strain on the social welfare system? has it lead to a drop in crime? has it correlated to an increase of sustainable jobs? Drop in sexual abuse of boys? Drop in suicide rates? An overall increase in charitable donations perhaps? These are material social benefits to a culture.

But this naturally begs the question what are the negative effects of socially accepted homosexuality on our culture? Then we simply look for inverted data to the examples we just asked. The sad fact is, that the effects are all negative. Now we can still tolerate behaviour that is negative most of the time. For example, alcoholism, or smoking. But we do not promote them in schools and celebrate them with diversity days. We teach them to be social ills that are to be frowned upon… except when it comes to homosexuality. Because none is allowed to ask the question.

I hope you ask this question of your friends and family when this topic comes up in the upcoming days. Because if they cannot easily answer this question, they should not be able to attack Catholics for being dogmatic when their view is completely without evidence and cannot bear critical scrutiny.

We as Catholics are not in the wrong on this issue. We are firmly ensconced in reason and science. Don’t let anyone try and tell you otherwise. Some say that we have “iron age” morals. Let me show you what the world was like when Christianity came to the tolerant pagan world.

Eusebious writes in 400 A.D.

"Persians no longer marry their own mothers once they have accepted the teaching of Christ; nor do Scythians feed any longer on human flesh. Other barbaric tribes have given up incestuous relations with their daughters and sisters. The men of other races have ceased to burn with mad lust for their fellow men and no longer indulge those other pleasures of the flesh which violate the law of nature." Praeparatio Evangelii, bk. 1, ch. 4)

Now who’s espousing the ridiculous ancient values of a bygone age?