34 thoughts on “False morality in men…”

  1. lol, this is a real thing. šŸ™‚ In some cases, the damsel not in distress is just an excuse for men to take their hostilities out on other men under the guise of protecting women. Male feminists come to mind; why is it that the men they think women need to be protected from are usually more successful with women than they are?

    This is a difficult topic, because the last thing I want to do is discourage men from protecting women: women should live by the ethic of children first, men should live by the ethic of women and children first, the strong should protect the weak when the weak really are in peril. But they usually aren’t in peril, and they usually don’t need protecting šŸ™‚

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  2. Recently my nephew remarked that it was ā€œa shameā€ that ā€œour religionā€ ā€”he meant the Genesis storyā€”gave men ā€œdominionā€ over all other creatures. Why did it have to be so bullying, so species-supremacist? seemed to be what he was saying…he is a ā€œmale feministā€ and will actually lecture ME about pregnancy, childbirth, and how men in general are boorish bullies, at least white men. It seems to me self-hatred can go no farther. But I think it is a false humility: if you consider yourself such a piece oā€™shit, then why are you SO SURE you have to attempt to impose your opinions on me?
    My female feminist friends have a different stance: sure, WE (wealthy, well-educated ) women can protect ourselves, BUT there are sooo many women who are helpless, clueless, stupid, just waiting for men to take advantage of them, sexually or otherwise. This is sexist and classist. It infantilizes women in general while holding oneself out as above the masses, one of the enlightened few. False.Pernicious. Hypocritical.
    Is this anywhere near what you had in mind, ST?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Right with you, E. Male-feminist, courtesy of our educational system…Both scary and frustrating! Let alone the passive-aggressive women who glom onto them. (Let alone the clueless ones…Sheesh!)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. And, giving the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the West a slap while he’s at it, is just heart-breaking, and soul-twisting, to me…A dear friend, who’s observant Jewish, looks at ‘dominion’ as a positive: sharing in God’s creative, sustaining love’ bringing forward the fulfillment of human life… (You may know the gentleman to whom I refer, as well.)

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Emeline, it seems to me that your nephew, male feminists, and my female friend’s advisors are all hiding their cowardice in a false (faked?) morality. I suspect that know that they don’t have the courage to seek out and then do battle with the ‘unknown evil that lurks in the dark’ so they hide that by denigrating (white) masculinity.

      I wonder what they believe is better for women than the “Patriarchy?” God help us.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Perhaps a domineering matriarchy – even more than is already in place in some settings – is their goal? God help us, indeed, and Amen!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. It’s early for me, ST: Need a definition of ‘false morality’, por favor? ‘Damsel in distress’ – I *think* I get it. Can you help a li’l sis out? I wanna be intelligent about this, if possible…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. How does this tie-in to Jordan Peterson’s efforts to encourage a revival of the art of manliness/womanliness – what Pope John Paul II called complementarity of the sexes?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. “False morality” = moralism/self-righteousness? A lack of self-reflection/humility? All of the above? (Am I getting smarter, hermano?)

        Liked by 2 people

  4. *damsel-not-in-distress*: Either because they’re too clueless, or because they’re causing others’ distress, perhaps? (Toldja it was early for me, lol.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. A friend and happily married woman has (little to) no romantic interest in me and vice versa. A few ‘gentlemen’ warn her to stay away from me because of my awesome powers to manipulate her little girl brain. Their false morality was in presuming that she would defile her marriage bed without their intervention.

    What does that say about how those men view the weaker sex? What does it say about how those men view men such as little ol’ harmless moi?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Ah, context…Having been similarly ‘warned off’ at various times in my life (one being rather recent) self-righteous, dismissive moralism – employed by both versions of humankind – fits the bill nicely…

      I *am* interested in Jordan Peterson vis-Ć -vis Pope St. John Paul II, as well, btw. Room for that here, or…?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  6. Here goes…When Fr.-Prof. Karol Wojtyla taught philosophy at the University of Lublin [late-50s–early-60s], he tucked explorations of the workings of truly personal, fully-human approaches to relationships into a more conventional (unnoticed by communist ‘minders’) survey of philosophical thought.

    When he became pope, these talks were collected and published as “Love and Responsibility”. I first read the book as an undergrad, and was struck almost immediately by his matter-of-fact acknowledgment that men and women are *supposed* to be different. Not to the total absence of either masculine/feminine traits (“tomboys”, for instance) but with a particular focus on nurture/protection, etc. Equally pleasantly-surprising was his insistence that varying levels of physical attraction (congruent with the stages of a relationship) played a nearly-indispensable part in its unfolding. Between-the-ears X elsewhere makes hearts and minds grow together…Who knew that the materialist-biologists who preached a utilitarian gospel of nearly-interchangeable parts were wrong then – and now?

    How does this complement Prof. Peterson’s work with today’s similarly-impaired youth?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I am not an expert of J. Peterson but my guess is that he would say heterosexual attraction has been a fundamental aspect of sexual reproduction since the beginning of time (or longer) for a reason.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. They may differ on the source, but I doubt that they would differ about the standard operating procedure. (Smile) Theyā€™re working from two sides of the same coin, it seems to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. As well, isnā€™t Peterson bringing up delay of gratification – and even aspects of chivalry – as components of behavior? Heā€™d get no argument there, from Wojtyla. A meeting of the minds seems likely.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The many western men who are spewing this false morality in defense of the damsel who prefers her men to be manly are angry at the world because the ‘hot chicks’ do not understand how awesome the Pajama-Boys are in bed.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. Especially if both sides start with St. Paul’s advice in Ephesians 5:22; “Submit to *one another*, out of reverence for Christ.”, yes?

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Iā€™m glad Dr. Peterson is articulating these things in ways that his students, clients, and others understand – and can internalize for themselves.

    Lights out for me, hermano: Buenas y Buenos. Entonces y Chao for now…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. DeNanda, JP says that the west has lost its faith in masculinity. My fear is that what we are going to get if the progressives ‘win’ is an Islamo-Sino toxic masculinity that will be deadly to 100s of millions of innocent souls.
    Those guys really do know how to put the toxic into their toxic masculinity.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. There is no avoiding the patriarchy. The only question is whether we will have a good patriarchy or a bad one. Feminists seem to be doing everything in their power to bring in a bad one, and I am not even thinking about Islam. I am just looking at Bill Clinton.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. For certain, ST! (Sigh) However, there’s a lot of grassroots work going on – especially in “flyover country” – among people of faith – to restore and model the truth that is ‘traditional’ masculinity (and femininity, for that matter). Lighting matches/candles, I know, but we’ve gotta do this one person at a time before we can heal the culture.

      By the way, we also need to focus on safeguarding vulnerable human life, and reclaiming human existence as a Good, don’t we? Or, “Masculinity” and “Femininity” will be meaningless…

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      3. Ponder this: most of the feminists who think that pro-lifers are cruel to expect women to carry pregnancies to term also want to force women into combat positions, and they will tell any woman who objects to shut up and stop whining. According to feminists, pro-life men are tyrants who just want to oppress women, but men who want to send teenage girls to the front lines are sympathetic figures who want only for men to be treated fairly. Those who advocate for women in combat believe in fairness at literally any cost, and damn the consequences. There is no room in their world view for protecting the weak, which makes me wonder: what is the point?

        Life isn’t fair. It isn’t fair that women get pregnant and men don’t; it isn’t fair that men are (a lot) better at fighting than women are. But I wouldn’t want life to be fair in those respects anyway, and I don’t understand why anyone would. I am glad that men can’t get pregnant; it is a good thing that women are not as strong as men are. There is so much evil and darkness in this world, but at the end of the day, the nature of our existence is beautiful and should be celebrated, not lamented.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Don’t have to ponder, JaC: along with you, I’ll marvel, wonder, celebrate…Especially this week! (Combat-arms and she-males is a whole ‘nother piece of this…Looking forward to J. N. Mattis’ book in about a week, re: this, and so much else.)

        Liked by 1 person

  10. I do not even know the way I stopped up right here, but I thought this publish
    used to be great. I do not know who you are but
    definitely you are going to a famous blogger in case you
    aren’t already. Cheers!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. There are some attention-grabbing cut-off dates in this article however I donā€™t know if I see all of them heart to heart. There may be some validity however I’ll take hold opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we wish more! Added to FeedBurner as well

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.