As we've seen, the friend zone is a state of being to which people, mostly guys, are consigned when date-able (at least on the surface) women do not consider them as mating options. Either these dudes stick around, or she insists upon the arrangement, hoodwinking him with vague assurances of a potential romance.
But there's another huge, fundamental pitfall in it for a man. Being friends with someone is a committment. No? It involves maintenence like even a family relationship: returning calls, texts, and emails. Attending events and engagements together, etc.
But if a woman is desireable enough to have guys being her pal in the hopes of dating her, then she has options. And she's keeping those options open.
Why?
Because all she has to do is sit on a barstool somewhere, and prospective lovers will appear before her. She doesn't even have to lift a finger for it to happen.
But for you?
You have to be on the go to find prospective romantic partners. You have to be hussling it like a salesman, either sending out emails online or walking up to them, as strangers, to introduce yourself. You must follow up in proper fashion.
Folks, this doesn't happen sitting next to her on Friday and Saturdays as she gets hussled. It doesn't happen with her girl friends, who likely view you as platono material as well. It doesn't happen listening to her carry on about the guy that does interest her, you know, the one she is having a fling with, or wants to have a fling with.
When guys stop with this garbage, then so will women.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Women: The Official Statement
Just the other day, I received a troubling mass email message from Marc H. Rudov, a.k.a. The No Nonsense Man. He has declared his intent to cease his almost decade-long operation of promoting the rights of men in America and his specialty, dating equality. A movement unto himself, Rudov has appeared dozens of times on cable news, mostly Fox News, and scores of call-in radio programs throughout North America, promoting the view that, relative to women's undeniable advances these past forty years, men have experienced a relative decline, in both legal rights and social respect.
Rudov, who emerged on the larger scene about seven years or so ago, began primarily as a men's dating coach with his self-published no-nonsense guide on dating. There, with some apparent clever marketing, he began with his media appearances, in which he heavily denounced the inequality of longstanding dating rituals: A man picks up a woman, drives her to dinner or another social outing, pays for all or most, and heavily complements this with pricey flowers and other expensive tokens. These would be men escorting around women who were now considered their social and professional equals, unlike just two generations before when these customs most flourished. Of course, Rudov was met with some broad interest, but more roundly denounced a misogynist. This was especially the case after his commentaries segued into, more or less, arguing that women today enjoy broader privileges over men legally and often financially, and are in a position to, and often do abuse them. As many have said before him, though less notable, this has primarily pertained to men's experiences in divorce and family courts.
No doubt, the passage of time will render his efforts as more than meaningful, as having greatly advanced the conversation about male concerns into a greatly emerging, mainstream discussion. Before I continue on this road myself, I see it as necessary to state clearly and concisely, how I view the "better half" of humanity.
Women are like men in that they are just as diverse. WOMEN AND MEN ARE NOT, I repeat, NOT NATURAL-BORN ADVERSARIES. No two generations of women (or men, for that matter) have been quite the same. Factor in as well the cross-cultural differences: there's a huge gap between the Druids and the Anglo-Victorians, women from Ancient Egypt to modern Arab societies, from indiginous cultures to East Asia. It's just like comparing and contrasting men. If you hate S.S. officers and jihadists, do you therefore dislike all men?
"According to sociologist Allan G. Johnson, 'misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female.'"Thus, misogyny on the part of a man or men (or even some women) is essentially transhistoric and transcendant of culture and race. As is argued in conventional Islam, women as a set within creation are considered unilaterally of a lower rung: be this due to morality, strength, intellect, or will. A misogynist is someone who looks down upon women collectively, that is, "ad feminam."
In Catholicism, popes and saints have written about the special gifts of women, and a paradox has formed: for centuries, the thinking was based upon "Eve the Temptress." In modern, even conservative circles, it is almost now "Adam the Cad." The Women's Movements ushered in some great progress for all, yet the drawbacks are too numerous to lay out in one statement. One of these is the phenomenon of misandry, like misogyny, but in reverse: often by women aimed at men and males in general.
As I am on record as predicting almost a decade ago, in America and other advanced, Western societies, young adult, Millennial females. of the generation up to age 30, have decidely surpassed their male counterparts on most notable social measures. Some noted commentators have even described Caucasion Millennial females as the "most privileged" cohort of humans ever to exist: Countless efforts and resources on all levels, at all turns of society, were diverted and invested into their causes: sports playing, self-esteem building, re-configuring didactics for all to be tailored to their learning styles, designated girl-as-minority scholarships (even as majority), policies and laws protective only of them, etc etc etc...
Equal opportunity is one thing; over-privilege is quite another, even as unspoken reparations for the past dearth of the former. All-female enclaves still flourish in the U.S. today, while all-male enclaves have mostly been integrated, thus squelched. As even before the Great Recession -- which itself took a greater toll on jobs for men -- Millennial working women in urban areas (which have the higher wages) collectively out-earned, on average, on balance, their male counterparts, effectively reversing the conventional wage gap for an entire, major population cohort. No doubt, society as a whole has divested its attention and resources away from younger men.
Have you ever noticed how whenever some Caucasian American Millennial female does something charitable or nice, the action or event gets its own Facebook page? "Missy's volunteering page" or "Laura's mission trip," with their 1000+ "Likes." I mean, talk about going above and beyond, to the point of personal martyrdom! So how does all of this female rah-rah, including the majority of (at least) 2012 American Olympians, impact men? Or, better yet, how does it impact woman-man interactions? Like never before, that's how.
This female population cohort is more romantically and socially frustrated than ever. More ink has been spilt on magazine pages and now, bestselling books, about the compromised levels of male peers available to them. But too often, as in so many other life scenarios, these younger women, in this society today, are viewed as blameless victims of circumstance, if not prejudice. Even when marital age delay is factored (i.e., young professionals marrying at age 31, not 24), fewer marriages are happening than ever before. Of course, for a generation that grew up on the "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" motif, this is because we're losers, we're pigs or swine or dogs, and just don't get the meaning of committment.
In fact, even though younger women outearn us on the whole, they still assess us according to the densities of our wallets, social ranks, etc. And who ever said our physical appearances were out of the equation? There wouldn't be studies at Harvard on male "Bigorexia" if it just wasn't so. Then, there are all these additional, vague and capricious personality tests we must meet, oftentimes just plain "knowing" what she wants, right when she wants it. Feminists have been too busy moaning about "reproductive rights" to even begin to focus on this paradox. But someone must.
Yet, that tide is slowly turning. Books, such as "Why You're Not Married Yet" and "Marry Him" thoruoghly address this phenomena. It's often their own fault when "still" not married. But implicitely, it's our fault no matter what. Most of what goes wrong for many of them is our fault. They party and drink (per capita) more than men nowadays, yet since we set that trend in the first place, the negative and predictable fallout for young adult women is, of course, our fault. In a workplace or professional setting, many are oh so quick to banter at us about "taking responsibility," but then again, what is theirs? Before you hop up and start excoriating all feminists, just consider some of the baby-boomer males you know who have daughters. Think about how these deeply-vaginized beings, having heard the women's liberation rhetoric of the 1970s, their wives fanfare about Oprah Winfrey, and before that, Mom's early 1960s romanticizing about chivalry all rolled together, get all chocked up with emotion upon Stacey or Brianna winning this or that gold award in high schools, colleges and beyond? They weep to themselves, "If only Mom had these opportunities." While these ace daddies stacked it all against us as they took over the reigns of society, they're angry now that we can't give their precious princesses their due as "good providers."
The question is not whether or not women are inclined to marry up: Generally, they are. The true paradox of this era is, "What if there isn't enough 'up' to marry into?" Go ahead ladies, by all means, keep those brains working and getting educated, I'm in NO way opposing it. But like it or not, this is the fundamental turning point we are at.
Younger guys being called "misogynists" for identifying and avoiding what is rank spoiled brat behavior on so many levels, is to almost suggest -- ad feminam -- girls and women generally of being naturally bratty. Yet, such whiny windbags abound.
Rudov hasn't said enough times, treating women's bad behavior with kid gloves is to treat adults like little girls. And how does this honor womanhood and equal opportunity?
Women's true potenital is now, at long last, being realized. And it's wonderful. But we live within many zero-sum realities: A law school entering class with 100 seats, determined to be equal, is now rejecting nearly 50 guys it otherwise would have taken decades ago before Title IX of the Equal Rights Amendment. Does this have implications? Hell yeah. Am I saying the legal profession should be all or mostly male? Of course not. But those lacking in analytical depth will say that's what I'm saying, nonetheless.
Among American Caucasian female Millennials are some of the most splendid human beings to dwell existence. Yet, among others is a dense concentrate of self-entitlement and anti-male bigotry. Marc Rudov seemed to aim his messages primarily at his own age cohort (40s,50s and 60s), but problems, all told, are most acute among the younger ages. so if he does decide to close up shop (pending current reader response), know that the torch will nonetheless be carried forward. As the educational gaps -- long in place -- steadily increase, and anti-male laws beefed up per the Obama administration, young men will (and already are) get completely fed up. Let the revolution begin.
Like men, among both groups and individuals, some are great. Others are less so. It's not because "all women..." this or that, just as so often it's "all men..." Let's keep that in mind as at long last, an honest discussion between the sexes takes form.
Rudov, who emerged on the larger scene about seven years or so ago, began primarily as a men's dating coach with his self-published no-nonsense guide on dating. There, with some apparent clever marketing, he began with his media appearances, in which he heavily denounced the inequality of longstanding dating rituals: A man picks up a woman, drives her to dinner or another social outing, pays for all or most, and heavily complements this with pricey flowers and other expensive tokens. These would be men escorting around women who were now considered their social and professional equals, unlike just two generations before when these customs most flourished. Of course, Rudov was met with some broad interest, but more roundly denounced a misogynist. This was especially the case after his commentaries segued into, more or less, arguing that women today enjoy broader privileges over men legally and often financially, and are in a position to, and often do abuse them. As many have said before him, though less notable, this has primarily pertained to men's experiences in divorce and family courts.
No doubt, the passage of time will render his efforts as more than meaningful, as having greatly advanced the conversation about male concerns into a greatly emerging, mainstream discussion. Before I continue on this road myself, I see it as necessary to state clearly and concisely, how I view the "better half" of humanity.
Women are like men in that they are just as diverse. WOMEN AND MEN ARE NOT, I repeat, NOT NATURAL-BORN ADVERSARIES. No two generations of women (or men, for that matter) have been quite the same. Factor in as well the cross-cultural differences: there's a huge gap between the Druids and the Anglo-Victorians, women from Ancient Egypt to modern Arab societies, from indiginous cultures to East Asia. It's just like comparing and contrasting men. If you hate S.S. officers and jihadists, do you therefore dislike all men?
"According to sociologist Allan G. Johnson, 'misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female.'"Thus, misogyny on the part of a man or men (or even some women) is essentially transhistoric and transcendant of culture and race. As is argued in conventional Islam, women as a set within creation are considered unilaterally of a lower rung: be this due to morality, strength, intellect, or will. A misogynist is someone who looks down upon women collectively, that is, "ad feminam."
In Catholicism, popes and saints have written about the special gifts of women, and a paradox has formed: for centuries, the thinking was based upon "Eve the Temptress." In modern, even conservative circles, it is almost now "Adam the Cad." The Women's Movements ushered in some great progress for all, yet the drawbacks are too numerous to lay out in one statement. One of these is the phenomenon of misandry, like misogyny, but in reverse: often by women aimed at men and males in general.
As I am on record as predicting almost a decade ago, in America and other advanced, Western societies, young adult, Millennial females. of the generation up to age 30, have decidely surpassed their male counterparts on most notable social measures. Some noted commentators have even described Caucasion Millennial females as the "most privileged" cohort of humans ever to exist: Countless efforts and resources on all levels, at all turns of society, were diverted and invested into their causes: sports playing, self-esteem building, re-configuring didactics for all to be tailored to their learning styles, designated girl-as-minority scholarships (even as majority), policies and laws protective only of them, etc etc etc...
Equal opportunity is one thing; over-privilege is quite another, even as unspoken reparations for the past dearth of the former. All-female enclaves still flourish in the U.S. today, while all-male enclaves have mostly been integrated, thus squelched. As even before the Great Recession -- which itself took a greater toll on jobs for men -- Millennial working women in urban areas (which have the higher wages) collectively out-earned, on average, on balance, their male counterparts, effectively reversing the conventional wage gap for an entire, major population cohort. No doubt, society as a whole has divested its attention and resources away from younger men.
Have you ever noticed how whenever some Caucasian American Millennial female does something charitable or nice, the action or event gets its own Facebook page? "Missy's volunteering page" or "Laura's mission trip," with their 1000+ "Likes." I mean, talk about going above and beyond, to the point of personal martyrdom! So how does all of this female rah-rah, including the majority of (at least) 2012 American Olympians, impact men? Or, better yet, how does it impact woman-man interactions? Like never before, that's how.
This female population cohort is more romantically and socially frustrated than ever. More ink has been spilt on magazine pages and now, bestselling books, about the compromised levels of male peers available to them. But too often, as in so many other life scenarios, these younger women, in this society today, are viewed as blameless victims of circumstance, if not prejudice. Even when marital age delay is factored (i.e., young professionals marrying at age 31, not 24), fewer marriages are happening than ever before. Of course, for a generation that grew up on the "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" motif, this is because we're losers, we're pigs or swine or dogs, and just don't get the meaning of committment.
In fact, even though younger women outearn us on the whole, they still assess us according to the densities of our wallets, social ranks, etc. And who ever said our physical appearances were out of the equation? There wouldn't be studies at Harvard on male "Bigorexia" if it just wasn't so. Then, there are all these additional, vague and capricious personality tests we must meet, oftentimes just plain "knowing" what she wants, right when she wants it. Feminists have been too busy moaning about "reproductive rights" to even begin to focus on this paradox. But someone must.
Yet, that tide is slowly turning. Books, such as "Why You're Not Married Yet" and "Marry Him" thoruoghly address this phenomena. It's often their own fault when "still" not married. But implicitely, it's our fault no matter what. Most of what goes wrong for many of them is our fault. They party and drink (per capita) more than men nowadays, yet since we set that trend in the first place, the negative and predictable fallout for young adult women is, of course, our fault. In a workplace or professional setting, many are oh so quick to banter at us about "taking responsibility," but then again, what is theirs? Before you hop up and start excoriating all feminists, just consider some of the baby-boomer males you know who have daughters. Think about how these deeply-vaginized beings, having heard the women's liberation rhetoric of the 1970s, their wives fanfare about Oprah Winfrey, and before that, Mom's early 1960s romanticizing about chivalry all rolled together, get all chocked up with emotion upon Stacey or Brianna winning this or that gold award in high schools, colleges and beyond? They weep to themselves, "If only Mom had these opportunities." While these ace daddies stacked it all against us as they took over the reigns of society, they're angry now that we can't give their precious princesses their due as "good providers."
The question is not whether or not women are inclined to marry up: Generally, they are. The true paradox of this era is, "What if there isn't enough 'up' to marry into?" Go ahead ladies, by all means, keep those brains working and getting educated, I'm in NO way opposing it. But like it or not, this is the fundamental turning point we are at.
Younger guys being called "misogynists" for identifying and avoiding what is rank spoiled brat behavior on so many levels, is to almost suggest -- ad feminam -- girls and women generally of being naturally bratty. Yet, such whiny windbags abound.
Rudov hasn't said enough times, treating women's bad behavior with kid gloves is to treat adults like little girls. And how does this honor womanhood and equal opportunity?
Women's true potenital is now, at long last, being realized. And it's wonderful. But we live within many zero-sum realities: A law school entering class with 100 seats, determined to be equal, is now rejecting nearly 50 guys it otherwise would have taken decades ago before Title IX of the Equal Rights Amendment. Does this have implications? Hell yeah. Am I saying the legal profession should be all or mostly male? Of course not. But those lacking in analytical depth will say that's what I'm saying, nonetheless.
Among American Caucasian female Millennials are some of the most splendid human beings to dwell existence. Yet, among others is a dense concentrate of self-entitlement and anti-male bigotry. Marc Rudov seemed to aim his messages primarily at his own age cohort (40s,50s and 60s), but problems, all told, are most acute among the younger ages. so if he does decide to close up shop (pending current reader response), know that the torch will nonetheless be carried forward. As the educational gaps -- long in place -- steadily increase, and anti-male laws beefed up per the Obama administration, young men will (and already are) get completely fed up. Let the revolution begin.
Like men, among both groups and individuals, some are great. Others are less so. It's not because "all women..." this or that, just as so often it's "all men..." Let's keep that in mind as at long last, an honest discussion between the sexes takes form.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Her Attitude Changes
A shout-out to Aunt Seraphic, about whose blog I posted a couple of posts down the other day. Apparently, word got back to her, all the way to Scotland, that I was making a federal case here in R.I.
The issue had to do with some seeming anti-male bromides she had written, pertaining to "seduction" by way of a young woman consuming alcohol and proceeding to have a sexual encounter with a man. She very angrily derides such behavior -- on the part of the guy having consenting sexual contact with the conscious/responsive but intoxicated female -- as seduction. Then, Miss Seraphic proceeds to make statements that seem to conflate this activity with a form of sexual assault (i.e., "it is not yet" considered rape legally, or at least that's how I picked it up). Of course, a number of U.S. college campuses, and some radical feminists, would press the issue.
Now it seems like a productive and open forum for both sexes may be opening, so long as women are willing to oblige. So much to her credit, Aunt Seraphic fesses the following:
A couple of things still do come to mind, speaking as a man:
1. If I or any other guy wrote this sort of thing on a blog -- about how and why we've been bitter about women -- we'd have "no credibility," we'd be "misogynists," "desperate losers," etc. Women can whine all day about men, but not vice versa. In fact, in most modern Western societies, men are to put up and shut up. The results have not just been bad for us, but for the institution of marriage and all society.
At the same time, Aunt Seraphic deserves heaps of credit for being so forthright about this.
2. Tons of guys are now met with tons of single young adult women like the former Seraphic, circa age 27. We must hear their carrying on about their exes and formers, be viewed with constant self-righteous suspicion, "prove" ourselves worthy by showing her what a true lady she is -- with our wallets hanging open and outward, that is -- all to be found guilty nonetheless, though of some lesser charge. Too vanilla. Too nice. Still too pushy. Too close to his mother. Not enough steady employment in his life. Too many gaps between relationships. Doesn't attend Mass at the right sort of church. On and and frickin' on...The next guy must figure out which reparations to make for the last guy, or guy before that, who tossed her away.
3. It's still important to clear the air once in a while. Men and women are divided like never before, and people must always compete with expectations being mis-matched. It sounds so trite, but there's usually a dearth of honest and forthright communication between men and women, even going into a relationship. It's after he puts on the ring that we finally start sorting out our differences in religious faith, who does the laundry and how, etc. By why rock the boat when we can just keep things light, right?
4. She picked the bad ass over the Catholo-platano nice guys. What a shock. Given this, it's even more unfair to hate most men, but unfortunately too many guys are either/or. You've either got the chinstrap-bearded, ear-pierced biker hero; OR the parted-haired, rimmed glasses handerchief-carrying mama's boy. A total testosterone imbalance and a seeming limit on options for many young women.
I agree with Seraphic when she decries young chauvinists, using orthodox faith as their pretext, who attempt to dictate the terms of female modesty to their girl friends. Or desperate blokes who pressure women to do anything, which is always unattractive. And she deserves the ultimate tip of the hat for placing so much effort into focusing single women onto that which Truly matters, beyond banalities of single life.
Since this isn't the Seraphic fan blog, what about me then? I am BITTER?
Hell NO.
There are just too many single women available to meet and date, to be bitter about this one or that, however many years ago. Sure, I've had bad experiences -- mostly disappointments -- not major romance trauma. I acknowledge that many people do, BUT this includes men.
Part of this is, starting with online dating nine years ago, I knew to run the other way whenever a date introduced incessant chatter about an ex -- even if it was positive. She can have all the time she needs to deal with whatever her residual feelings of him (or them) may be; I have every right to move on and find someone who is truly emotionally available.
I've had many fewer relationships than other men of their early 30s, though I maintain the unique vantage point of living vicariously through the tales of many others. If you're boxed into one long-term relationship, chances are that will form the locus of your experience. If I'm a drug counselor who listens to addicts all day, then I surely know well the "life of an addict," even if I've only experimented once or twice (NEVER have, actually!)
What I am is frustrated that people spend their time either planning a Disney happily-ever-after with whomever, OR blaming that eventual whoever of the opposite sex (or the sex as a whole) when reality comes crashing down. What we need are honest discussions about proper expectations, and stopping the blame.
In many future posts, I will be describing what I see as the challenges and pitfalls of dating and singlehood for men...
The issue had to do with some seeming anti-male bromides she had written, pertaining to "seduction" by way of a young woman consuming alcohol and proceeding to have a sexual encounter with a man. She very angrily derides such behavior -- on the part of the guy having consenting sexual contact with the conscious/responsive but intoxicated female -- as seduction. Then, Miss Seraphic proceeds to make statements that seem to conflate this activity with a form of sexual assault (i.e., "it is not yet" considered rape legally, or at least that's how I picked it up). Of course, a number of U.S. college campuses, and some radical feminists, would press the issue.
Now it seems like a productive and open forum for both sexes may be opening, so long as women are willing to oblige. So much to her credit, Aunt Seraphic fesses the following:
"So why did poor little Seraphic (age 27) hate (most) men so much, eh? Could it have anything to do with the row of Andrea Dworkin books on the shelf in her bachelor apartment? Maybe. But it probably had more to do with 17 years of disappointment with male behaviour."
"adolescence brought all the disappointments of unrequited love, which I suffered probably every day. And I do mean every day...But it was the worst in high school..."
"I did rather better, socially speaking, in university where, I now realize, I was a heartbreaking menace, the rose-stem chomping bane of Nice Catholic Boys (well, a few of them anyway). But, unfortunately for him and me, I married Mr Protestant Totally Wrong, and that was a total nightmare and led to being divorced at 27, reading Andrea Dworkin and weeping on Shrinkie's couch."
"I understand why it is easy to hate men...All you have to do is hold a friend's hand as she cries because that man she had a crush on for so long used her and tossed her aside like a tissue. All you have to do is think about what bad stuff has happened to you. Soooooo easy to hate men. So tempting. But a seriously bad idea."In the end:
"It is a seriously bad idea because if you get into the mental habit of hating men--and I know you might have very compelling reasons for doing so--you are not going to be able to see good men or the good in men who sometimes annoy you. The bad stuff will get blown way out of proportion. And so will the stuff that other women find only moderately annoying."In all frankness, I never doubted this sort of trail of events in picking up on Seraphic's weariness of men. Dworkin wrote precisely to seize upon existing post-revolutionary discontentment women had from their dealings with the other half, who were increasingly viewed as cads. But Dworkin's views of pre-feminist sexuality weren't much nicer.
A couple of things still do come to mind, speaking as a man:
1. If I or any other guy wrote this sort of thing on a blog -- about how and why we've been bitter about women -- we'd have "no credibility," we'd be "misogynists," "desperate losers," etc. Women can whine all day about men, but not vice versa. In fact, in most modern Western societies, men are to put up and shut up. The results have not just been bad for us, but for the institution of marriage and all society.
At the same time, Aunt Seraphic deserves heaps of credit for being so forthright about this.
2. Tons of guys are now met with tons of single young adult women like the former Seraphic, circa age 27. We must hear their carrying on about their exes and formers, be viewed with constant self-righteous suspicion, "prove" ourselves worthy by showing her what a true lady she is -- with our wallets hanging open and outward, that is -- all to be found guilty nonetheless, though of some lesser charge. Too vanilla. Too nice. Still too pushy. Too close to his mother. Not enough steady employment in his life. Too many gaps between relationships. Doesn't attend Mass at the right sort of church. On and and frickin' on...The next guy must figure out which reparations to make for the last guy, or guy before that, who tossed her away.
3. It's still important to clear the air once in a while. Men and women are divided like never before, and people must always compete with expectations being mis-matched. It sounds so trite, but there's usually a dearth of honest and forthright communication between men and women, even going into a relationship. It's after he puts on the ring that we finally start sorting out our differences in religious faith, who does the laundry and how, etc. By why rock the boat when we can just keep things light, right?
4. She picked the bad ass over the Catholo-platano nice guys. What a shock. Given this, it's even more unfair to hate most men, but unfortunately too many guys are either/or. You've either got the chinstrap-bearded, ear-pierced biker hero; OR the parted-haired, rimmed glasses handerchief-carrying mama's boy. A total testosterone imbalance and a seeming limit on options for many young women.
I agree with Seraphic when she decries young chauvinists, using orthodox faith as their pretext, who attempt to dictate the terms of female modesty to their girl friends. Or desperate blokes who pressure women to do anything, which is always unattractive. And she deserves the ultimate tip of the hat for placing so much effort into focusing single women onto that which Truly matters, beyond banalities of single life.
Since this isn't the Seraphic fan blog, what about me then? I am BITTER?
Hell NO.
There are just too many single women available to meet and date, to be bitter about this one or that, however many years ago. Sure, I've had bad experiences -- mostly disappointments -- not major romance trauma. I acknowledge that many people do, BUT this includes men.
Part of this is, starting with online dating nine years ago, I knew to run the other way whenever a date introduced incessant chatter about an ex -- even if it was positive. She can have all the time she needs to deal with whatever her residual feelings of him (or them) may be; I have every right to move on and find someone who is truly emotionally available.
I've had many fewer relationships than other men of their early 30s, though I maintain the unique vantage point of living vicariously through the tales of many others. If you're boxed into one long-term relationship, chances are that will form the locus of your experience. If I'm a drug counselor who listens to addicts all day, then I surely know well the "life of an addict," even if I've only experimented once or twice (NEVER have, actually!)
What I am is frustrated that people spend their time either planning a Disney happily-ever-after with whomever, OR blaming that eventual whoever of the opposite sex (or the sex as a whole) when reality comes crashing down. What we need are honest discussions about proper expectations, and stopping the blame.
In many future posts, I will be describing what I see as the challenges and pitfalls of dating and singlehood for men...
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Why I'm Not In the Friend's Zone
Sorry folks, this is intended to offend.
Many guys bemoan being put into this mysterious designation of the friend zone. While it isn't a place per se, but much like Hell itself is now understood, it is a state of being, but one that men have complete control over going to.
Usually the scenario is thus: guy thinks he wants to be or is in love with (or at least wants to get laid by) a woman. But, he lacks both confidence and cajones to come striaght out the gate with a date offer. Now, most oftentimes women just know when a guy wants them, even without any stated proposal or invitation.
Nonetheless, they proceed, but not as a pair exploring coupledom. Usually, she'll invite him out with her friends -- often they are mostly female. They'll have lots of fun together, talking about her favorite pasta textures, avacado recipes, places to shop, past boyfriends, cute guys, etc. All the while, he's getting closer, ever-harboring those high hopes. They text and talk constantly...
And then, all of a sudden, she announces she's met the guy she's really pining for romantically. Or even that she's now in a relationship. "But what about me?" the dumb bastard exclaims. Then, the predictable speech about "being like a brother to me" and "not wanting to spoil our beautiful friendship" comes. How beautiful indeed.
Several things are really happening:
1. She's irredeemably self-absorbed. On a practical basis, this friended dude is like another young lady comrade to her, for his presence is truly androgynous in her mind. Now that's largely his fault (as we'll get to), but on a practical level, what type of "love" is truly exchanged herein?
Well, oftentimes listening to her confide in him such tragedies as what exactly happened between she and some dude -- perhaps an ex -- when "he got me drunk." Mind you, platono-boy (someday) hopes to have relations with her, or just can't get her out of his mind, for her to instead torment him with all sordid details of her "mistakes" to be unconditionally assured of her lovability. The only problem is, it's his lovability she's blinded to in the process. And, sucking up his time and efforts away from what could be more fruitful pursuits for him means nothing to her.
2. He's like a brother. When she says that, believe it. Most women aren't interested in dating their brothers -- that's called incest.
3. He's a nice guy This in itself doesn't require much description, as it's culturally agreed-upon as to what constitutes such niceness. But all of his seemingly selfless gestures (which still have a distinct purpose, always) speak a much deeper, more subtle language to people in general, women in particular. He's a wimp. When push comes to shove on the elemental levels, when it comes to providing that essential security in life, his abundant social graces speak to his being a doormat in major conflicts, and an inability to "stake out territory." On the deepest levels, this is hugely unappealing to females.
4. Guys allowing themselves routine friend zoning are a scourge on all menkind. Private behavior does have a public impact, here too I'm afraid. Instead of directly pursuing the goal of dating and marriage directly, too many pussyfoot around it in their young adulthood. Women too often freely take the liberty to play on the perceived affections of a single and looking guy (they are NOT completely interested in), and think nothing of swallowing up his time and efforts under the "getting to know you" pretext. As a matter of routine course, young adult women in this society seek out guys not for loving, but to fill their respective gaggles.
For the past two decades, a national campaign has been in full swing to improve and insure the high self-esteem of girls and young women. Take a look at the results yourself. The pathologic social dynamic of "just friends" is no help whatsoever to this or even to the institution of marriage.
Now this is NOT a diatribe against all forms of platonic relations and affections. They surely have an integral time and place in life. But nature has it where it is impossible to fully conflate "agape" with "eros."
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Aunt Seraphic and her Millstones
Many months ago I was first introduced to a blog called Seraphic Singles, written by a Catholic woman based in the U.K. Her blog is devoted to marrying-age single women who are burdened by the travails of modern dating and prolonged singlehood. Her perspective is, of course, quite spiritual and tends toward the more orthodox posture. I first came upon this when Aunt Seraphic's (the name she goes by) posted about the social decline of men, and the scourge of misandry we live under in Western societies today. For the most part, it was well said.
Occasionally, I returned to her blog, as she does have somewhat of a following of men, likely those looking for insight into dating more tradition-oriented females.
But a sampling of her oft-rambling and frequent posts, often set up in a question-answer format, reveals something else. Just consider this:
Of course, real Catholic men don't pressure women they are dating to sleep with them, ever. And I'd add that men who have to have women plastered -- Aunt Sepaphic refers to them in this context -- in order to facilitate sex are true eunuchs: They simply cannot get it on without a chemical interference. In short, boozers really are losers.
Yet it's hard to get around how Seraphic often comes off sounding like Caitlin Flanagan, a noted Atlantic contributor, in her many sarcastic screeds about piggish men who spend much of their waking time plotting to manipulate young damsels into sex acts they're otherwise too inately moral and pure, with "natural modesty" to engage in. And whatever they do by choice (or have done), it's shame on those swine and vermin who made them do it -- alcohol or none, no matter.
Of course, certain Catholic women who represent the "traditional" viewpoint, in particular, love to excoriate feminism: this is especially when it comes to its adverse impact on the proper ways for men and women to relate. Yet, read a bit deeper, and you'll realize how much they sound like their opposition at times. If women are not victims of "patriarchy," then they are the victims of the revolutions against it, especially the sexual revolution. And if women are at the receiving end, they reason, then men must be both the arbiters and the beneficiaries. Either way, women are qualified as victims, deprived of their true will in either case, by y-chromosome beings.
Still:
Wendy Shalit, who authored A Return to Modesty in 1999, essentially posits the following, as summed up by Cathy Young:
In fact, while Aunt Seraphic may lead her poppets to the gates of heaven, it is difficult to see how very many are being led to the altar. Not because they practice modesty and chastity in a sexualized culture(unless using the blame-the-bastard card), but because of this sort of attitude. If she loves men as she says, why does she so often rail about tales of woe at the hands of the few, while promoting such a defensive, ultimately divisive posture toward dating that serves to drive away many potential suitors? It sounds like she may be a bit personally bitter, actually. You might think at least a little after reading this:
Given this, and its clear origins with Andrea Dworkin, one must conculde that most extra-marital sex is "seduction," and that most men are seducers. Given the invocation of MT 18:6, adult women must be innocent as babies, regardless, and at this rate, men are potantial molesters. Why else invoke this verse if not to drive home that point? Don't most sweet, good guys just pine to be with a young woman starting out with this subtle impression of them? Having to burn through much cash to wine and dine them, just for the privilege to prove he isn't a rapist? Tell us again, Auntie: Why is it that so many men never call again?
Oh yes, all of this Seraphic wisdom in response to a reader's note about a guy who, ultimately, "...was never the tiniest bit threatening or aggressive." Sure, he's a caddish scumbag, but worthy of millstones?
In all fairness, Seraphic is one of a cadre of emerging pseudo-traditional, more-or-less anti-male conservative Catholic warrior princesses. The other notables include EWTN's Johnette "Botox" Benkovic; Ave Maria Radio's Teresa "Tomboy" Tomeo (kind of converse to the former); this other site, and certainly, as of late, the previously sensible Mary Eberstadt. Once they're through ranting and screeding about un-chivalrous men-kind and the damsels (that they infantilize), the message becomes clear: Whenever it involves men, female sins are not sins.
A holistic reading of Seraphic (Perpetual) Singles reveals too much misandry to be ignored.
Occasionally, I returned to her blog, as she does have somewhat of a following of men, likely those looking for insight into dating more tradition-oriented females.
But a sampling of her oft-rambling and frequent posts, often set up in a question-answer format, reveals something else. Just consider this:
"Seventh, I am very angry with Catholic men who pressure women to sleep with them."No doubt, this is a resurgent theme on her blog.
Of course, real Catholic men don't pressure women they are dating to sleep with them, ever. And I'd add that men who have to have women plastered -- Aunt Sepaphic refers to them in this context -- in order to facilitate sex are true eunuchs: They simply cannot get it on without a chemical interference. In short, boozers really are losers.
Yet it's hard to get around how Seraphic often comes off sounding like Caitlin Flanagan, a noted Atlantic contributor, in her many sarcastic screeds about piggish men who spend much of their waking time plotting to manipulate young damsels into sex acts they're otherwise too inately moral and pure, with "natural modesty" to engage in. And whatever they do by choice (or have done), it's shame on those swine and vermin who made them do it -- alcohol or none, no matter.
Of course, certain Catholic women who represent the "traditional" viewpoint, in particular, love to excoriate feminism: this is especially when it comes to its adverse impact on the proper ways for men and women to relate. Yet, read a bit deeper, and you'll realize how much they sound like their opposition at times. If women are not victims of "patriarchy," then they are the victims of the revolutions against it, especially the sexual revolution. And if women are at the receiving end, they reason, then men must be both the arbiters and the beneficiaries. Either way, women are qualified as victims, deprived of their true will in either case, by y-chromosome beings.
Still:
I am not angry with Catholic men who merely suggest it in the context of loving relationships. If you make out enough, such suggestions are likely because making out is Nature's way of preparing human beings to have sex. I cannot think of a better way to break down even the most devout Catholic's resistance to the desires of his body than prolonged making out with himAside from whether this may be a tacit nod to having some committed but pre-marital sex coming from this Catholic maven, there's no getting around how so many single women are ever-aggrieved in this more committed scenario as well. So often, it just doesn't work out in the end, and she's left holding the bag, with the likes of Seraphic there to cheerlead her away from such "users." Still:
Eighth, there are lots of good men. Many, many, many. I think most men are good men, and it is sad that bad men just make more of an impact...A survey of the Seraphic blog reveals much careful coaching of young women in dating protocol. While there are just too many posts of length to wade through now, she advises her audience to more or less adhere to The Rules and the teachings of Wendy Shalit, who leads a so-called "modesty revolution." The former is a timeworn guide, popular in the mid-90s, that advises women to be as high-maintenance as possible (e.g. the famous not going with him Saturday night if he calls after Wednesday nonsense) while being pursued. On this thread, Seraphic is wont to tell her ladies to always let him do the asking out, dropping coy hints along the way, otherwise expecting him to divine her thoughts and wishes. Figures that both Rules authors are now long-divorced since their popularity.
Wendy Shalit, who authored A Return to Modesty in 1999, essentially posits the following, as summed up by Cathy Young:
Victim feminism and victim antifeminism converge in Wendy Shalit's A Return to Modesty, a strange mix of Victorian pieties about womanhood and feminist hyperbole (ours, says Shalit, is a "truly misogynist culture" that accepts " the rapist's view of womanhood" because it won't let women be women). It is, no doubt, the first book ever to boast blurbs from both neoconservative doyenne Gertrude Himmelfarb and lunatic-fringe feminist Andrea Dworkin. Shalit, the 23-year-old darling of the right, embraces not only conservative myths of female victimhood but the feminist ones as well. She agrees that women and girls face constant abuse, violence, and degradation at the hands of men, as well as the ravages of low self-esteem and eating disorders--only she thinks the culprit is not patriarchy but the loss of respect for female modesty. Echoing the feelings-over-facts attitude for which conservatives have rightly derided the cultural left, she even suggests that flawed studies and false charges matter less than the underlying truth: "A lot of young women are trying to tell us that they are very unhappy."To say this hasn't had an impact on Aunt Seraphic is an understatement. As such, women on her site are advised to hang all sort of hoops that the seemingly vast majority of good men must fly through just to prove that they're not really one of the bad ones. Seraphic erects such a high barrier between single men and women, it's a surprise that they'd want to be with each other. Practically speaking, she proceeds as though ALL men are potentially "rat bastards" until proven innocent.
In fact, while Aunt Seraphic may lead her poppets to the gates of heaven, it is difficult to see how very many are being led to the altar. Not because they practice modesty and chastity in a sexualized culture(unless using the blame-the-bastard card), but because of this sort of attitude. If she loves men as she says, why does she so often rail about tales of woe at the hands of the few, while promoting such a defensive, ultimately divisive posture toward dating that serves to drive away many potential suitors? It sounds like she may be a bit personally bitter, actually. You might think at least a little after reading this:
But Catholic men who pressure women to sleep with them or ply them with alcohol in the hopes of changing their minds are Judas.How she defines "pressure" or even "ply with alcohol" isn't quite so clear. In the end, Seraphic depicts a commonplace scenario among young adults as "seduction," that is, ethically a form of rape.
"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, then it is better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." --Matthew 18.6
But merely offering a woman drinks, hoping thereby to change her mind, is not yet attempted rape. It is a form of seduction, and although it is a very stupid one, I can see why a rat-bastard would attempt it.Not YET, folks. She boozes, then she changes her mind days, weeks, MONTHS after...but not YET. This is commonplace in that women often engage in sex acts after at least some alcohol consumption -- mostly consumed, in itself, freely by her, NOT by way of forced tube-feeding by him.
Given this, and its clear origins with Andrea Dworkin, one must conculde that most extra-marital sex is "seduction," and that most men are seducers. Given the invocation of MT 18:6, adult women must be innocent as babies, regardless, and at this rate, men are potantial molesters. Why else invoke this verse if not to drive home that point? Don't most sweet, good guys just pine to be with a young woman starting out with this subtle impression of them? Having to burn through much cash to wine and dine them, just for the privilege to prove he isn't a rapist? Tell us again, Auntie: Why is it that so many men never call again?
Oh yes, all of this Seraphic wisdom in response to a reader's note about a guy who, ultimately, "...was never the tiniest bit threatening or aggressive." Sure, he's a caddish scumbag, but worthy of millstones?
In all fairness, Seraphic is one of a cadre of emerging pseudo-traditional, more-or-less anti-male conservative Catholic warrior princesses. The other notables include EWTN's Johnette "Botox" Benkovic; Ave Maria Radio's Teresa "Tomboy" Tomeo (kind of converse to the former); this other site, and certainly, as of late, the previously sensible Mary Eberstadt. Once they're through ranting and screeding about un-chivalrous men-kind and the damsels (that they infantilize), the message becomes clear: Whenever it involves men, female sins are not sins.
A holistic reading of Seraphic (Perpetual) Singles reveals too much misandry to be ignored.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
The U.S. Economy and the Anti-Idleness Ideologues
The U.S. economic news since late spring has been dour to say the least. Growth in the latest quarter hovered just over 1 percent, when historic post-recession recoveries could be as high as nine percent in a given quarter. Add to this the drawn-out nature of this recovery: it's been humming along (barely) for the last three years since the official close of the Great Recession.
This doubtless has a dire impact on jobs hiring. The White House itself now projects an 8-plus percent unemployment rate through the close of 2012 (H.W. Bush losing with a 7 percent rate in 1992), a White House that should be readying to change occupants in short order. Yet, most polling as of today yeilds no clear-pathed victory for GOP challenger Mitt Romney.
As social service spending has increased monumentally in these three years, with combined state and federal social services now placing the U.S.'s welfare expenditures well within the range of many so-called European "welfare states," has emerged some notable impatience with those utilizing this system in some way.
Thus has emerged the so-called Anti-Idleness Ideologues. These are oft well-meaning folks who maintain that, simply, "there are still plenty of jobs out there." This is surely true, and there is broad understanding that many of such jobs only hire those with a precise skill-set (usually quite technical in some way), that exclude from consideration most of those now out-of-work.
But the ideologues here tend to speak more to low-skilled, somewhat unsteady, often seasonal "jobs that no one else wants": these are heavily concentrated in food service, often restaurant-based and service fields. These are low-wage (and often really no-wage, tip-based pay) that offer largely fluctuating schedules that are seasonally adapted and over-sensitive to consumer use and demand. A popular bistro may be hopping through Labor Day -- hirees offered copious earning opportunities -- to find themselves effectively laid off thereafter.
Sarah Palin and former Senate candidate Sharon Angle of Nevada have made such notable commentaries, though one man is leading this charge: John Stossel of Fox Business and News channels.
Stossel, a former ABC News consumer reporter and noted libertarian, recently interviewed several largely minority social service beneficiaries in a line outside of the Manhattan welfare office. Make no mistake, there were dozens lined up, though Stossel interviewed a handful about their social condition: all noted a lack of gainful job opportunities.
Stossel then interviewed a good number of cafe and restaurant managers within a decent radius of the welfare office. No fewer than a couple of dozen said they were presently hiring in some capacity. Stossel then took this as an opportunity not only to rightly bash the welfare state, but also the individuals at the receiving end for their presumed sloth. But even the several openings he discovered still do not provide enough individual opportunities for the many more lined up, out the door, on welfare in North America's wealthiest city.
Whether Stossel and this cadre (and they can be of any ideology, really) care to admit it, those who take these sorts of jobs are STILL eligible for a host of nanny-state benefits, even under past administrations, due to the low wages: Medicaid for certain; also subsidized housing and perhaps even cash subsidies. These people may be more or less "justifying" their benefits through their labor efforts, but does this scenario raise anyone out of the hole?
To Stossel, it does. Within the segment, he asked many Fox News personalities what their first jobs in life were: They included cleaning parking lots of Dairy Queens, lifeguarding, dishwashing, landscaping, waitressing, and on and on. But why should this be of any real surprise? They were ALL KIDS when they took these positions. These sorts of jobs absolutely induce an essential work ethic in life, no doubt about it. But a dignified long-term livlihood?
The Anti-Idleness Ideologues rightly demean the socialist welfare policies of Obama, but often wrongly demean those individuals at the receiving end. Make no mistake, emotion governs their thoughts in this matter, raw anger over the "free rides" so many are getting at the expense of the perpetually motivated throught their tax dollars. But by identifying and promoting these "plenty of jobs" and opportunities line, these anti-welfare philosophizers are also giving tacit promotion to Obama's re-election. Why elect someone else as president, upsetting the apple cart, with so many available jobs and ample, ultimate opportunities for meteoric rises in life?
Stossel presents the obvious as the obvious for sure, but so often with such wallops of profundity in tone.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
The True Ideological Divisions of Catholicism
In light of the raging debate over the Vatican's "crackdown" of the religious sisters of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious), which represents the high majority of women's vowed communities in the U.S., misunderstandings about the political nature of the modern Church have re-emerged. I love writing lists and breakdowns, so here it goes once more. .
As I see it, there are essentially three broad, notable divisions in practicing Catholicism today. It's hard to get a clear read on the exact distribution of how many belong to each group, as many surveys conflate the beliefs of both practicing and non-practicing. This pretty much represents the practicing distribution:
Progressives
This includes the LCWR and its surrogates, groups like Call to Action and elements of Voice of the Faithful. Whether or not activist, these are the Church's change agents: they wish for official Church teaching to be altered on birth control, women's ordination, certainly mandatory celibacy, certain "patriarchal" elements of liturgy, with far more lay involvement in Church governance. To them, abortion is just one among a host of issues and by itself does not take precedence, as there are scores of other social justice concerns, much aligned to secular progressivism.
Traditional
These folks are well-fractured, but hold out that the modernizing Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was either entirely unnecessary, or simply turned out very badly for the Church. Think Pat Buchanan for starters: They point to the moral turpitude in the pews (e.g. the progressives themselves) and declining numbers of Mass attendance and religious vocations to illustrate the point. Most of the hierarchy has been either inept in this struggle, aligned with progressives in thought, or themselves morally corrupt no matter what they call themselves.
They love the traditional "Tridentine" Latin Mass, either viewing it as the exclusive rite of worship, the favored rite, or even close to how the new rite should basically look, sound, and smell. In all, these are people who readily admit they want the Church of the 1950s restored.
Neo-conservative
Often conflated by the press with the aforementioned traditionalists, this is an ecclesiology unto itself. It represents a sort of middle ground, but should not be confused with being "moderate" in terms of dogmatic rigor.
To these folks, the institutional establishment comes first. That is, the authority structure, as is, takes precedence in their minds. So, while Vatican II presented the Church universal with a bumpy ride in the decades out with plenty of progressivist dissent, Pope John Paul II pretty much straightened it all out (with the exception of notable bits of Western Europe).
The Latin Mass can be nice (even very nice) at times, but is surely not exclusive, for that wouldn't be true in thinking with the Church (and its Vatican II reforms). Most Masses today are in the are vernacular (with pretty crummy music, admittedly to some) but really shouldn't change, because that's the status quo, and since the establishment is beyond reproach, we really don't question it.
While we despise liturgical violations (they're against what the bishops say), we still welcome charismatic expressions (that often thrive on liturgical violations) because John Paul II did, since it presumably brought more folks into the institutional fold, and that's what really matters most.
We talk about those we'd love excommunicated, but we won't do it, as that would lessen the reach of the institutional establishment and make it all the more unpopular. Otherwise, the Church is in wonderful shape; we don't see many problems in the institution beyond a few public dissenters. The Church is growing worldwide, more priests are being ordained than in the past several decades in America (though how many imported?). Dissent was largely solved by JPII through his episcopal (bishop) appointments, and the priestly sex abuse problem is mostly a delusionary fiat of a hostile secular press.
So, how do these broad factions interact?
It's all rather counterintuitive, actually. Progressives and traditionalists both see the Roman Catholic Church as being screwed up...in major ways. And some of their lists actually overlap:
BOTH view the Church as being in a state of measurable decline, even worldwide overall, with no end in visible sight. BOTH view the hierarchy as being chock-full of disingenuous and power-hungry elites. BOTH consider sex abuse as still being a huge, largely under-addressed crisis. While there's a "one-strike" policy in the U.S. against priests, bishops are inconsistent in publicizing those who have been credibly accused and when. Bishops themselves are not personally held to account when they are accused of misconduct personally. BOTH admit to there being a somewhat widespread gay subculture throughout seminaries and the priesthood in the West. BOTH see the ineptitude of the hierarchy in addressing these notable hypocrisies.
YET, both have VASTLY OPPOSING solutions to these honest diagnoses. Progressives want "progress" through vast doctrinal changes and revisions. Traditionalists want a revival of bygone discipline through tradition to stave off further damage, or for a complete revival.
Though neocons have a different view: they want to crack down on "dissent," but this is often pitched popularly as liberal detraction from the ecclesial party line on such things as birth control. But other times, it is right wing, traditional dissent, that is, anyone who harshly criticizes the sitting pontiff, who doesn't "think with the Church" and "uphold the Office." Yet, their crackdowns can be notably tepid: for instance, threatening or suggesting withholding the Host from only the most virulent of pro-choice politicians, suggesting sanctions against the very most progressive (and often elite) of Church-affiliated institutions of higher learning (usually over invitations to secular-progressive notables for commencements); this is when most U.S. Catholic universities have long been mainstreamed into society. In the final analysis, it's all about preserving institutional cohesion. and prestige People being excommunicated will only trigger an exodus from this institution on their part and by their supporters, which in turn will serve to weaken the "big tent" that is today's Catholicism, thereby lowering the prestige and influence of the pontifical and episcopal offices. I shit you not, this is truly the cliff's notes synopsis of how they think.
While the outside world is rotting away, corruption inside the Church is not an issue for neocons. We should just celebrate John Paul II (JPII), who "revitalized" the Church, instead, and not really question the Church's establishment authority structure, lest we be "proud."
So WHO are these Catholo-neocons exactly? Think the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, who edited the conservative First Things project; or George Weigel, papal biographer, or Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law Professor, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, most of the cast and producers of EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) and their print outfit, the National Catholic Register. Occasionally this crew will call upon the hierarchy to be more aggressive in dealing with the afore-defined notable "public" doctrinal dissenters, but will stop short of promoting anything that will cause real "division," otherwise known as schism. In reality, many progressive dissenters FLOURISH within modern U.S. and European Catholicism, usually in the lay apparatus of Catholic institutions (oftentimes charities), the LCWR (yes!) which is connected to its own vast expanse of Catholic education and charity, and especially within the broader higher education ivory towers (and not just Jesuit schools). In truth, the whole house may fall if this status quo is disrupted, which is why the neocons hope progressives just shut up or be converted to orthodoxy; otherwise they wish to leave them mostly intact.
Then, there's neocon clericalism, which is defined as over-emphasizing the separateness and apartness of the clergy from the laity, to the point of noting only their "specialness." No doubt, this DOES mean ignoring or minimizing the sometimes notable personal faults of individual priests, including those that interfere with their effective ministering. JPII was big on this (as he was big on restoring institutional cohesion, which indeed WAS coming apart at the seams during the 1970s and threatening schism) as are most neocon laity and hierarchy. A great example is New York Cardinal Archbishop Timothy Dolan: he's OK with Cardinal Bernard Law receiving his prestigious basilica appointment in Rome from JPII AFTER being removed for the horrendous cover-up crisis in the Boston archdiocese. You'll rarely hear a sitting bishop criticize another bishop, sitting or retired, for any reason. Laity who resist criticizing priests "because he's a priest!" are likewise of this mindless mold. The other two groupings almost love excoriating clergy who do not fit the respective bent these folks represent.
Yet, note how Pope Benedict XVI has called for a smaller, more cohesive Church, one without "filth" and dissent that, though reduced in worldly presence, is far more true and meaningful. Many on all sides minimize some of the astounding course-corrections undertaken during his reign, broadly conflating his policies with JPII's in order to serve whatever their talking points may be.
Trads can be found reading The Latin Mass, while progressives usually read Commonweal and National Catholic Reporter.
I don't readily identify with any of these divisions, actually. Though my emphasis herein should demonstrate wherein lies the true problem.
As I see it, there are essentially three broad, notable divisions in practicing Catholicism today. It's hard to get a clear read on the exact distribution of how many belong to each group, as many surveys conflate the beliefs of both practicing and non-practicing. This pretty much represents the practicing distribution:
Progressives
This includes the LCWR and its surrogates, groups like Call to Action and elements of Voice of the Faithful. Whether or not activist, these are the Church's change agents: they wish for official Church teaching to be altered on birth control, women's ordination, certainly mandatory celibacy, certain "patriarchal" elements of liturgy, with far more lay involvement in Church governance. To them, abortion is just one among a host of issues and by itself does not take precedence, as there are scores of other social justice concerns, much aligned to secular progressivism.
Traditional
These folks are well-fractured, but hold out that the modernizing Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was either entirely unnecessary, or simply turned out very badly for the Church. Think Pat Buchanan for starters: They point to the moral turpitude in the pews (e.g. the progressives themselves) and declining numbers of Mass attendance and religious vocations to illustrate the point. Most of the hierarchy has been either inept in this struggle, aligned with progressives in thought, or themselves morally corrupt no matter what they call themselves.
They love the traditional "Tridentine" Latin Mass, either viewing it as the exclusive rite of worship, the favored rite, or even close to how the new rite should basically look, sound, and smell. In all, these are people who readily admit they want the Church of the 1950s restored.
Neo-conservative
Often conflated by the press with the aforementioned traditionalists, this is an ecclesiology unto itself. It represents a sort of middle ground, but should not be confused with being "moderate" in terms of dogmatic rigor.
To these folks, the institutional establishment comes first. That is, the authority structure, as is, takes precedence in their minds. So, while Vatican II presented the Church universal with a bumpy ride in the decades out with plenty of progressivist dissent, Pope John Paul II pretty much straightened it all out (with the exception of notable bits of Western Europe).
The Latin Mass can be nice (even very nice) at times, but is surely not exclusive, for that wouldn't be true in thinking with the Church (and its Vatican II reforms). Most Masses today are in the are vernacular (with pretty crummy music, admittedly to some) but really shouldn't change, because that's the status quo, and since the establishment is beyond reproach, we really don't question it.
While we despise liturgical violations (they're against what the bishops say), we still welcome charismatic expressions (that often thrive on liturgical violations) because John Paul II did, since it presumably brought more folks into the institutional fold, and that's what really matters most.
We talk about those we'd love excommunicated, but we won't do it, as that would lessen the reach of the institutional establishment and make it all the more unpopular. Otherwise, the Church is in wonderful shape; we don't see many problems in the institution beyond a few public dissenters. The Church is growing worldwide, more priests are being ordained than in the past several decades in America (though how many imported?). Dissent was largely solved by JPII through his episcopal (bishop) appointments, and the priestly sex abuse problem is mostly a delusionary fiat of a hostile secular press.
So, how do these broad factions interact?
It's all rather counterintuitive, actually. Progressives and traditionalists both see the Roman Catholic Church as being screwed up...in major ways. And some of their lists actually overlap:
BOTH view the Church as being in a state of measurable decline, even worldwide overall, with no end in visible sight. BOTH view the hierarchy as being chock-full of disingenuous and power-hungry elites. BOTH consider sex abuse as still being a huge, largely under-addressed crisis. While there's a "one-strike" policy in the U.S. against priests, bishops are inconsistent in publicizing those who have been credibly accused and when. Bishops themselves are not personally held to account when they are accused of misconduct personally. BOTH admit to there being a somewhat widespread gay subculture throughout seminaries and the priesthood in the West. BOTH see the ineptitude of the hierarchy in addressing these notable hypocrisies.
YET, both have VASTLY OPPOSING solutions to these honest diagnoses. Progressives want "progress" through vast doctrinal changes and revisions. Traditionalists want a revival of bygone discipline through tradition to stave off further damage, or for a complete revival.
Though neocons have a different view: they want to crack down on "dissent," but this is often pitched popularly as liberal detraction from the ecclesial party line on such things as birth control. But other times, it is right wing, traditional dissent, that is, anyone who harshly criticizes the sitting pontiff, who doesn't "think with the Church" and "uphold the Office." Yet, their crackdowns can be notably tepid: for instance, threatening or suggesting withholding the Host from only the most virulent of pro-choice politicians, suggesting sanctions against the very most progressive (and often elite) of Church-affiliated institutions of higher learning (usually over invitations to secular-progressive notables for commencements); this is when most U.S. Catholic universities have long been mainstreamed into society. In the final analysis, it's all about preserving institutional cohesion. and prestige People being excommunicated will only trigger an exodus from this institution on their part and by their supporters, which in turn will serve to weaken the "big tent" that is today's Catholicism, thereby lowering the prestige and influence of the pontifical and episcopal offices. I shit you not, this is truly the cliff's notes synopsis of how they think.
While the outside world is rotting away, corruption inside the Church is not an issue for neocons. We should just celebrate John Paul II (JPII), who "revitalized" the Church, instead, and not really question the Church's establishment authority structure, lest we be "proud."
So WHO are these Catholo-neocons exactly? Think the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, who edited the conservative First Things project; or George Weigel, papal biographer, or Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law Professor, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, most of the cast and producers of EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) and their print outfit, the National Catholic Register. Occasionally this crew will call upon the hierarchy to be more aggressive in dealing with the afore-defined notable "public" doctrinal dissenters, but will stop short of promoting anything that will cause real "division," otherwise known as schism. In reality, many progressive dissenters FLOURISH within modern U.S. and European Catholicism, usually in the lay apparatus of Catholic institutions (oftentimes charities), the LCWR (yes!) which is connected to its own vast expanse of Catholic education and charity, and especially within the broader higher education ivory towers (and not just Jesuit schools). In truth, the whole house may fall if this status quo is disrupted, which is why the neocons hope progressives just shut up or be converted to orthodoxy; otherwise they wish to leave them mostly intact.
Then, there's neocon clericalism, which is defined as over-emphasizing the separateness and apartness of the clergy from the laity, to the point of noting only their "specialness." No doubt, this DOES mean ignoring or minimizing the sometimes notable personal faults of individual priests, including those that interfere with their effective ministering. JPII was big on this (as he was big on restoring institutional cohesion, which indeed WAS coming apart at the seams during the 1970s and threatening schism) as are most neocon laity and hierarchy. A great example is New York Cardinal Archbishop Timothy Dolan: he's OK with Cardinal Bernard Law receiving his prestigious basilica appointment in Rome from JPII AFTER being removed for the horrendous cover-up crisis in the Boston archdiocese. You'll rarely hear a sitting bishop criticize another bishop, sitting or retired, for any reason. Laity who resist criticizing priests "because he's a priest!" are likewise of this mindless mold. The other two groupings almost love excoriating clergy who do not fit the respective bent these folks represent.
Yet, note how Pope Benedict XVI has called for a smaller, more cohesive Church, one without "filth" and dissent that, though reduced in worldly presence, is far more true and meaningful. Many on all sides minimize some of the astounding course-corrections undertaken during his reign, broadly conflating his policies with JPII's in order to serve whatever their talking points may be.
Trads can be found reading The Latin Mass, while progressives usually read Commonweal and National Catholic Reporter.
I don't readily identify with any of these divisions, actually. Though my emphasis herein should demonstrate wherein lies the true problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)