Today is the day feminists all over the world scream the usual nonsense about a fake “parity” that betrays the very essence of femininity.
Happily, this 2017 appears different from the more recent ones. Chewbacca is not the First Lady anymore, and we see timid signs of the rejection of aggressive “femancipation” calls. The new First Lady recites the Our Father at her husband’s rallies. Long may it last.
For Catholics, the matter of emancipation is fairly simple:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Hhmmm…. St Paul on the one side, the secular culture on the other side. I wonder who is right?
We live in times of pernicious mixing of secular and religious values. For nineteen centuries, Christians have felt no need for “emancipation”. At some point, though, the movement gained such traction that it became ingrained in the Western way of thinking. So much so, that even decent Catholics thought it obligatory to reconcile the differences.
It does not work, because St Paul and the Suffragettes (and their descendants) are in fundamental opposition to each other.
It is no coincidence that the Lord, through St Paul, commands different roles for men and women, at the same time as the Church has never ever denied same dignity and importance to women. There are no differences in what souls are. There are differences in the way they are supposed to work together for their own salvation and the salvation of their children and loved ones.
One hundred plus years of logical derailment have now put us in front of what happens when we ignore the way life is supposed to be organised. The shifting of the measure of dignity (from having dignity in one’s own role to only having dignity if allowed to parrot men) has engendered a rebellion that starts with suffrage and ends with sexual promiscuity, contraception, abortion, mass divorce (in the West, very largely initiated by women), mass single parenthood and, crucially, massive divorce rape of men, with the subsequent unwillingness of the latter to contract a bond that can see them ruined and deprived of house and children at their wives’ calling. The latest trend is for the emancipated, divorcing wife to immediately accuse the husband of rape and/or violence: it makes it easier to get house and children, you see.
The so-called International Women’s Day is the International Women’s Betrayal Day. It is the day when the progressive self-destruction of femininity is celebrated as an achievement, and a further injection of testosterone into Western women is demanded as fitting and long overdue. Less Our Father, more Chewbacca.
Reject the mentality en bloc. Be a counter cultural “agent for change”. Proclaim in your circle of influence the right of the man to be the head of the woman, and the right of the woman to be led by her man. Assert the utter superiority of the traditional system, that did not produce anywhere near, anywhere near the amount of utterly miserable women we see around us today.
I know that, because my life experience straddles what seem to me now two different planets: the traditional Italian societies of pre-female suffrage (represented by the army of grandfathers, grandmothers, grand-aunts, and grand-uncles I had around me as a child) and the utterly unbelievable world I live in today, a world that would have had those grand-aunts heartily laughing in disbelief at the immense stupidity and absurdity of it.
That perfectly absurd world is now everyday reality. I see all those wretches around me every day. The wrinkled colleague in her Fifties talking to you about her “boyfriend”, who at some point will abandon her like every other man before him, and with good reason. The single mother desperately looking for a companion, and giving her body to a number of sub-prime or third-rate males she will likely never manage to persuade to marry her. The young woman already sampling a number of pricks higher than her ten female ancestors together: an experience devastating and soul-ravaging in the long term, utterly unsuited to the female nature, and disqualifying her as marriage material for any quality man. Up to the most benign case, the poor mother labouring under a huge strain, and forced to have two jobs (mother and office worker) and a long commute, because “emancipation”. Enjoy that train ride, ma’am, whilst you suffer at knowing that your children see their mother at 6:30 PM. You wanted to be “independent”, n’est-ce pas?
My grandmothers and grand-aunts lived in the middle of children. They all wished to marry and be the women of one man, but even those to whom the grace of a husband and children was not given were happy in their abandonment to providence, could care for the children of the enlarged family, had time to laugh and cry and be real women rather than caricatures of men, and were an important part of a large family fabric that was all-sustaining and all-absorbing. They were fully women, and lived a life far more fulfilling than the modern office slave will ever imagine. And they lived and died in the fear of the Lord, which coloured all the rest.
I see all those wrinkled women with “boyfriend” around me, and reflect that all this started with the oh so celebrated “suffragettes”.
Who, between you and me, must have been first-class bitches all right.
I cannot – no one can – follow on my own the breathtaking pace of Francis stupid statements and acts. I have stumbled – why, you will discover if you read to the end – upon an oldish post from the Eponymous Flower. In it, a joker answering to the name Enzo Bianchi went on record with the following, barely believable statement:
“In the Church there are good intentions, but about there are unreal expectations about women: The model Maria, Virgin and Mother, can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the church. The fashionable, subliminally alleged idea that Mary was more important than St. Peter, is a stupid idea, just as the wheels of a car would be more important than the steering wheel.”
First, let us counter the insult to the Blessed Virgin with the Litany of Loreto.
After we have recited it, and have calmed ourselves, let us try to reason about what this joker is trying to achieve; possibly, without damaging our coronaries.
The “advancement of women in the Church” is here the main point. Our understanding of, well, everything must be subordinated to it. Even (Lord, give me strength!) the way we see the Blessed Virgin as the model for every woman.
The revolutionary premise is not even hidden. It is the same as if I would say “the model Christ cannot be the reference point for the advancement of social justice in South America”. It is a complete denial of any Christian understanding before one even starts reasoning about Christianity.
Religion must shape our lives, not – as this man thinks – the contrary. Mary is the model for every woman exactly because the Church has always said so. in this, the “advancement of women” is neither here nor there, which is not at all casual considering how little “emancipated” (and therefore, in Mr Bianchi’s a-Christian view, “non-advanced”) Mary was.
This madman reflects the madness of our times: our stupid new idols become the new religion; after which, we start revisiting and criticising the Real Thing according to our new fashion.
There has never been any need for “emancipation”, which is exactly why Mary never felt any need or desire for it. Go one centimetre into thinking that Mary’s life, social standing, and general place within the family was wrong and you can’t call yourself a Christian, because what you are saying is that Christianity has, for two thousand years, promoted a wrong social model, striking hard at the very core of human existence, by way of the very life of the Blessed Virgin.
Our joker and wannabe “fake monk” says it even more openly, declaring his enmity with Christianity with explicit words:
“We are not yet able to take unequivocal equality between men and women seriously. The path of the Church is still very far, because even all the men are at the decision-levers, while women are restricted to low services”
If the Church is “still very far” for Mr Bianchi’s new religion (“unequivocal equality”, meaning “treating women as if they had a prick”; and you must be blind in order not to see what this has done to them), the Church and Christianity have been a fraud these two thousand years. This is a frontal attack on Christianity, and an open insult to the evidently, in this perspective, weak and wrongly submissive Blessed Virgin.
I rest my case.
You may ask: “Mundabor dear, why do you care for jokers like this wannabe monk, when you could be drinking tea whilst listening to beautiful Christmas carols?” My answer would be : 1) because this joker not only writes in several secular newspaper; 2) because the same clown is very officially a “consultor” of the Pope, via the Pontifical Council for the Sabotage of Catholicism in any Way we can (official name could be slightly different); 3) because the man now even openly vilifies the apparitions of Fatima.
Francis The Evil Clown is evidently looking for new ways to insult the Blessed Virgin, the Church, and Christianity as a whole, and finds that all the rubbish continuously coming out of his mouth is not near enough. Therefore, he surrounds himself with “consultants” helping him to demolish the Church as much as he, and they, can. These people then proceed to tell you that the Blessed Virgin isn’t a model of their new religion, and that Fatima must have been a swindle because hey, the Blessed Virgin did not collect the necessary number of PC points by not mentioning the Holocaust; which, you understand, it’s the new litmus test for saintliness.
So much for the Evil Clown, of whom some not exceedingly intelligent woman once commented on this blog that he must be fine, “because he is devoted to the Blessed Virgin”. Go figure.
Denial of Christianity. As a consequence, insult to the Blessed Virgin. As a consequence, attack to Fatima.
From their “consultants” you will recognise them.
You would have thought that the catalogue of horrors perpetrated by a nazi culture which thinks nothing of killing babies in the mother’s womb (apologies, I must correct myself: that considers it a woman’s right to be able to kill a baby in her mother’s womb) would have, in the meantime, presented you with all the abominations it could possibly think of: women “married” with women; ditto men with men; surrogate wombs for poofs eager of motherhood (or whatever-hood they call it); abortion on demand; day after pill for forgetful women and, of course, “emancipation” galore. The poor women are not even free to feel and behave like women anymore, with “big sister” always watching them and carefully checking their degree of (how was that? ah….) “emancipation”.
But if you had thought that the catalogue of horrors be complete, you’ll have to rethink after reading this
You would think that when, say, a boy of twelve is uncertain of his sexuality, his parents would lovingly support him in the gradual discover of the sexual orientation God has made him with. But you would be wrong. Eager parents of the S-generation (yes, you know what S stands for) are extremely eager to refuse any common sense and sensible thinking; instead, they yearn for hormones to be given to their poor boy (let us repeat here: if he has a little friend, boy; otherwise, girl; tertium non datur!) so that his sexual growth may be more or less stopped and the poor chap may “make his own choice” as to, well, what he wants to be when he grows up. You couldn’t make it up.
That it is exactly the duty of the parents to guide their offspring toward a harmonious development of their sexuality, is not mentioned in the least; that it is, moreover, the exact duty of the parents to do so from the tenderest age instead of waiting for this poor boy to grow amidst a forest of confusing messages, in a world where every abomination is considered normal, is not considered at all; that a clear separation of roles, and of attitudes, between father and mother is the best way to encourage a natural assimilation of gender-typical roles from the side of the children is, obviously, too fascist to be even hinted at.
But look for one moment at traditionally Catholic societies, those islands of mental sanity where political correctness is, according to the moment, either joke or insult. Over there men are men, and women are women. From men it is expected that they behave like men, and from women that they behave like women. This happens from the tenderest age, and if you haven’t had the privilege of growing up in a traditionally Catholic society (for which fact the author doesn’t envy you) just notice the behaviour of boys and girls by your next holiday and you’ll start to get the gist of the matter. Please also be informed that these boys and girls grow in intact families in much bigger numbers than their English counterparts; that they generally have one father and one mother, who even are their biological parents; and that in general, they grow and behave as if growing up in an intact family – where men are men and women are women – were the most natural thing on earth.
Which it is. Outside of England, that is.
Instead, what we have more and more often in our de-Christianised societies (and far too often anyway even in those traditional Catholic societies; certainly more often than this used to be the case) is eunuchs married to witches of whom they are terrified; witches often working and earning more than their husbands do, spending less time at home than them, and carrying the trousers in every conceivable ways. When this confusion in turn generates confusion in the children (children growing up without clear orientation; with a father who thinks and behave like a woman and a mother who thinks and behaves like a man), the poor idiots find nothing better to do than to chemically stop the sexual development of their offspring, perhaps with a view of ruining them forever by “embracing” whatever perversion they may decide to follow, and perhaps even following this madness up with the surgical, irreparable removal of their manhood.
Simply and utterly monstrous. Monstrous in a way that follows from the utter subversion of the very simple basis of every working society: that men are men, women are women, and that from each of them that mentality and behaviour are expected, that are aligned to their sex and to their profound nature. Too many people have simply forgotten – or are, astonishingly, unable to grasp – that God doesn’t do perversions, Satan does. Is this so difficult to understand for one who says that he believes in God? And if one doesn’t understand this, does he really believe in God?
What next: that God makes people pedophiles?
You will probably not know him but some years ago, a once-leftist Italian composer and singer, Roberto Vecchioni, shocked the champagne-sipping leftist Italy with a rather brutally conservative song against “manly” women (“manly”, of course, for the Italian standard; I will stop here out of sheer charity…….), declaring that he wants “a woman with the rock”. Scandal and anger ensued, of course. But it was scandal and anger the Italian way. Traditional societies know very well where the truth lies; even the leftists, in their own way.
Traditional societies, traditional roles, traditional women and traditional men; in turn, little boys growing and trained to become men and little girls growing and trained to become women. You do that and you’ll see that there is no need for legalised abominations; let alone hormone-fueled ones.