"The Genius of Women"

[VoxClamantis]

Oh, this drives me nuts. A post from the Mirror of Justice blog:
 
  

The Genius of Women

Pope John Paul II often referred to the "Genius of Women" and of their contribution to progress measured according to the "social and ethical dimension, which deals with human relations and spirtiual values." (Letter to Women). Pope Benedict has similarly given thanks for the manifestations of the feminine "genius."

Following are excerpts from the Good Friday homily of Capuchin Father Faniero Cantalemessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, which focus on the women at the cross. (Source: Zenit news, April 6, 2007)

"There has been animated discussion for quite some time about who it was that wanted Jesus' death: Was it the Jews or Pilate? One thing is certain in any case: It was men and not women. No woman was involved, not even indirectly, in his condemnation. Even the only pagan woman named in the accounts, Pilate's wife, dissociated herself from his condemnation. "Jesus said: 'Blessed is he who is not scandalized by me.' These women are the only ones who were not scandalized by him. 
 

Why does he believe this? First, the arrest was carried out by soldiers, who were men. The Sanhedrin that arranged for the arrest consisted of men. And it was "the high priest; and all the priests and the scribes and the ancients assembled together" that dealt with the official proceedings. No news there. But then He is taken before the multitude:

Mark 15:6-15:
Now on the festival day he was wont to release unto them one of the prisoners, whomsoever they demanded. And there was one called Barabbas, who was put in prison with some seditious men, who in the sedition had committed murder. And when the multitude was come up, they began to desire that he would do, as he had ever done unto them. And Pilate answered them, and said: Will you that I release to you the king of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him up out of envy. But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas to them. And Pilate again answering, saith to them: What will you then that I do to the king of the Jews? But they again cried out: Crucify him. And Pilate saith to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more: Crucify him. And so Pilate being willing to satisfy the people, released to them Barabbas, and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

And what of the women who tried to get St. Peter busted?

Matthew 26:69-71
But Peter sat without in the court: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.

And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.

Brave, loving friends o' Christ, were they?

"We must ask ourselves about this fact: Why were the women untroubled by the scandal of the cross? Why did they stay when everything seem finished and even his closest disciples had abandoned him and were secretly planning to go back home?
 

St. John stayed.

  
"Jesus had already given the answer to this question when, replying to Simon, he said of the woman who had washed and kissed his feet, 'She has loved much!' [The women at the cross] "followed the reasoning of the heart and this did not deceive them. Their presence near the crucified and risen Christ contains a vital teaching for today.

"Our civilization, dominated by technology, needs a heart to survive in it without being dehumanized. We have to give more room to the 'reasons of the heart,' if humanity is not to fail. The improvement of man's intelligence and capacity to know does not go forward at the same rate as improvement in his capacity to love. The latter does not seem to count for much and yet we know well that happiness or unhappiness on earth does not depend so much on knowing or not knowing as much as it does on loving or not loving, on being loved or not being loved. It is not hard to understand why we are so anxious to increase are knowledge, but so worried about increasing our capacity to love: Knowledge automatically translates into power, love into service.

"Love alone redeems and saves, while science and the thirst for knowledge, by itself, is able to lead Faust and his imitators to damnation.
 

Lesson to be learned: Men do science and are mean; women sit around and feeeeel things and are sugar and spice and everything nice and never do bad things.

 
"Everyday experience shows us that women can 'lift us up,' but they can also cast us down. She too needs to be saved, neither more nor less than man. But we must avoid repeating the ancient gnostic mistake according to which woman, in order to save herself, must cease to be a woman and must become a man. Pro-male prejudice is so deeply rooted in society that women themselves have ended up succumbing to it. To affirm their dignity, they have sometimes believed it necessary to minimize or deny the difference of the sexes, reducing it to a product of culture.
 

That is true, and I loathe condescending attitudes toward women -- which is just what we're seeing here. But it is also true that pro-female prejudice is just as bad, and in the Western world, it is men who are treated as second class citizens and talked about, as here, as if they are heartless brutes. Treating women like mindless creatures who are incapable of violence and anger is dehumanizing; treating men like pigs with wallets is also dehumanizing.

 
"The pious women [of Calvary] must not only be admired and honored, but imitated. How grateful we must be to the pious women! Along the way to Calvary, their sobbing was the only friendly sound that reached the Savior's ears; while he hung on the cross, their gaze was the only one that fell upon him with love and compassion."
 

Again, there was St. John. There was St. Simon of Cyrene who helped Him carry His Cross. There was St. Dismas who defended Him while he himself was being crucified. There was St. Joseph of Arimethea who buried Him. Enough of this man-bashing, and enough of this "woman as sentimental fluffball" nonsense.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Unfortunately, some think that in order to counterbalance the Victorian "Women are pure and weak" nonsense they need to denigrate men.

The reality is that men and women need to be saved, and both are saints and sinners.

[StevusMagnus]

Amen, Quis. I see it all the time. Priests and men try to make up for some perceived victimization and mistreatment of women by denigrating the entire male gender. It is idiocy. The same logic of using affirmative action (reverse discrimination) to "right" perceived past wrongs.

The answer is to buld up both sexes authentically, not try to sell out your own for praise and admiration from the PC crowd.

I see it all over popular culture and liberal Catholicism. Men feel they have to praise women as gods in order to be accepted and forgiven for a history of male oppression. By denigrating their own masuline nature (if they have any) they are really denigrating feminity as well since it is its compliment and both were created by God.

[Ginette]

Yeah! It all kinda drives me nuts too. I have had discussions about this type of thought lately as expressed in what they call 'The New Feminism'. (a la John Paul) Any thoughts on this -  especially from men?

[StevusMagnus]

What exactly is "the new feminism" ala JPII? I've heard of it, but it's always been vague to me. Probably along the same lines as what we have been talking about.

Women aren't stupid. They know when they are being sucked up to. Plus they have less respect for these men who would denigrate their own nature in order to get approval from women, instead of just speaking the Truth.

[miss_fluffy]

What about the woman who pleaded for the execution of St. John the Baptist? 

I think all this "women can do no evil" crap is a big part of what spurs on the pro-abortion crowd. 

[VoxClamantis]

Women aren't stupid. They know when they are being sucked up to. Plus they have less respect for these men who would denigrate their own nature in order to get approval from women, instead of just speaking the Truth.

 
It's not just the denigration of men in order to get women's approval (though the kind of woman that'd approve of that is a nasty kind of woman); it's the presentation of women as incapable of emotions and behaviors perceived to be negative. I.e., it's not just that men are "unemotional, heartless animals" who "need women to be civilized"; it's that women aren't even human, so angelic are we. We never get mad, throw things, frown, scowl, say no, get sassy, desire sex, get our hands dirty, sweat, or whatever. We just float along on our clouds, haloes on our heads and looks of rapture on our faces as we ponder how deep our looooooove is and how much we give, give, give, needing nothing intellectually, emotionally, artistically, etc. It's sick.
 
Sad to say, and though you say "women aren't stupid," there are some women who buy into that routine -- and there are some men who perceive women as sexless angels whose sole purpose is to feeeeeel things and cook and "pay the marital debt" without worrying about her own pleasure and such. There's a really sick "Holy Card Impersonation" syndrome going on out there on some acres of trad land, and it's dehumanizing to all concerned. I always chalk it up to the fact that modern life is confusing and hard, so some people like to have "ready-made personae" to slip into. "Modern life has too many choices; I'm tired of thinking! I know, I will pretend to be a 19th c. Victorian laaaady and let Mr. Man think for me!" or "I don't like modern life, so I will pretend to be a 19th c. Victorian gentleman! I will start to talk like Chesterton and use words in an outdated way just to prove how contrary I am! I will feign being scandalized by the sight of a woman's upper arms or, God forbid, a woman in pants, I mean pantaloons!" Emotional escapsim, totally. It is weird!

[StevusMagnus]

So you are saying there is a tendency to romanticize and idealize feminiity and women to the point that there are unrealistic expectations of what a woman should be? I've never quite thought of it from that perspective.

In this world of ours where scantily clad hedonistic young "women" are paraded in front of our tv's and billboards and magazines, I think there may be a tendency of some of the more Traditional sort to long for the old days when women had more modesty and virtue. Since modern men have no really prominent examples of how a lady should act/ dress in today's world, perhaps they go back in time to find examples and that leads to what you are talking about.

I guess that is a little different from what I had in mind. I am picturing these liberal priests and male speakers who try to be PC and get a chuckle or aproval by downing masculinity and men in order to "brown nose" to the women in the audience, or PC types in general. You see the same in almost every modern sit com. The husband/ father is a henpecked good for nothing dope while the wife/ mother is in charge, demanding, biting, etc.

It's amazing how the tv is used to reinforce libera lideas. They portray the reversal of gender roles, confusion of masulinity and femininity, and CONSTANTLY try to depict homosexuality as a normal acceptable behavior. Anyone religious is depicted as bigoted or slightly off their rocker (check out any episodes of Law and Order involving a religious character).

In any case, my stomach turns when I listen to a speaker who, trying to get laughs, talks about how dumb, brutish, stupid, animalistic, unrefined, men are. It is all a subtle (or not so subtle) attempt to atack real manhood and maculinity by portraying it as a caricature of extremes. As a result, young boys (most of whom are growing up without fathers or positive male role models) see this stuff and learn to either try to deny their own masculinity, or else try to find it, but in the wrong places (gangs, thug life, crime). On the one hand culture reinforces their lust (MTV, E!, Magazines) and then on the other hand calls them brutes who are only interested in sex.

The only answer, of course is to reject the smut of the culture as much as possible, to establish two parent Godly households with good role models and examples of how to live out a masculine and feminine life in Christ. "Male and female He created them." Of course, we don't live in the 50's or a Victorian era, so we need to carve out an existence unique to our time the best way we can. This is indeed difficult but I think, very possible, with the help of an authentic Catholicism that holds the riches and treasures of centuries of understanding regarding the nature of the roles in the family. However, some even "conservative" Catholic speakers and clergy make this difficult when they give in, even partially, to the cultural mindset.

Anyway, my convoluded thoughts, for what they are worth...

[StevusMagnus]

Also it is interesting because the popular media often portrays women as strong, masculine, lustful characters, while religious liberalism portrays them as angelic, feminine, and beyond reproach!

It goes to show that the left is simply out to glorify women and denigrate men by whatever standard of "good" is available. The Partriarchy must be done away with by whatever means neccessary I guess. Even if it is contradictory!

[Mommie2Boys]

Lesson to be learned: Men do science and are mean; women sit around and feeeeel things and are sugar and spice and everything nice and never do bad things.

 

This made me laugh because I was just this morning reading an article on eight or nine women who made the FBI's Most Wanted list. :lol: