Objective moral disorder contaminates classics.

[Gwendolyn]

Now that so many so-called women refrain from acting with even a modicum of the feminine civility of old, plenty of liberal men have no qualms about filling that void. No doubt their feminist wives even encourage such behavior. They are the ones that like to wear the pants in the family after all. A whole generation of girls have been raised without a clue of what being feminine even is any more, and it really, really shows.

Well, what do you consider being "feminine"? What constitutes "femininity" in your eyes?

 

[SolomonVII]

Well, what do you consider being "feminine"? What constitutes "femininity" in your eyes?

There is a modicum of civility and control implied in the word, a deferring from the macho aggressiveness which is so more typically seen among the male of the species. It entails a different way of looking at the world that desires to smooth things over rather than aggrandize personal power.
A woman's femininity is ultimately a civilizing force, an influence towards higher things, a complexity of character that ultimately channels the more simplistic driven character of the male toward something better than he would be able to achieve on his own.

I therefore would consider it grossly unfeminine for example for a woman to gratuitously engage in the slurs against one's character and name-calling that has now been belatedly taken care of in this particular thread.


Openness to masculinity in a male, encouragement of such behavior in fact, is imminently feminine. Wanting a man to become responsible in her own life even, encouraging such responsibility, especially nurturing such responsibility, is highly feminine in my eyes.

Wisdom, discernment, the ability to make good judgments about others especially—these are all characteristics especially prominent of a woman's femininity. To the extent that women take on the masculine traits, men in general will not have access these traits which come about mainly though exposure to such women on behalf of men. These generally only come about later on behalf of men compared to women.
A society that does not nurture femininity in females is ergo a society that will not grow up.

Hence I consider the modern feminist movement a great misnomer. It destroys the value of femininity with the ruthlessness in which it destroys embryos. and makes the destruction of new life, rather than the nuturing of new life, its highest value.

In a nutshell, off the top of my head that is how I would answer your question.

So what say you then? What do you consider to be feminine, and what do you consider to be unfeminine.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Wanting a man to become responsible in her own life even, encouraging such responsibility, especially nurturing such responsibility, is highly feminine in my eyes.

I do not understand this statement. Do you mean, a woman wanting a man to be responsible concerning his life, or a woman wanting a man to be responsible concerning her life? And if you mean a woman wanting a man to be responsible concerning her life, is that in addition to the woman's own responsibility concerning her own life? Or should women shift the responsibility for their own lives over to men? I'm just confused.

So what say you then? What do you consider to be feminine, and what do you consider to be unfeminine.

I'm not sure, myself. What I do think is that branches of modern feminism do go overboard and attempt to make women masculine, forsaking everything that is "feminine" and seeing it as weak, degrading, imprisoning. I often find that the difference between the sexes is seen as a horrible thing, something to be done away with and tossed out the window, because it is seen as some kind of hindrance to equality. I do not understand that notion; we can be different, but still be equal. Embracing our differences does not equal inequality, or mean that we are degrading women and glorifying men.

Didn't Pope John Paul II make reference to that in one of his encyclicals, or letters? The fact that modern feminism tends to desire to make women into men? I cannot remember.

This is a complicated issue. Or, it can be. I find that there are a lot of gender stereotypes - ie, "men don't cry", or "men don't talk about how they're feeling", which I think are more harmful than anything else. It is human to cry, and in order to foster good, solid relationships, communication is crucial. So, I don't really "buy into" those sorts of things... I don't know if that helps at all.

I'm just thinking out loud. :o

 

[canukian]

political corectness is satans lie.

 

[Deo_Adiuvante]

political corectness is satans lie.

Hmm. I'm not sure what context your putting that in...but I like that quote. Mind if I steal it in the future?

 

[SolomonVII]

I do not understand this statement. Do you mean, a woman wanting a man to be responsible concerning his life, or a woman wanting a man to be responsible concerning her life? And if you mean a woman wanting a man to be responsible concerning her life, is that in addition to the woman's own responsibility concerning her own life? Or should women shift the responsibility for their own lives over to men? I'm just confused.

John Hawkins : A Real Man's Responsibilities - Townhall.com


A feminine nature allows for men to take this kind of control, this kind of ultimate responsiblity for his wife and their family.
The feminist motto is " a woman needs a man like a man needs a bicycle".
A feminine woman recognizes that her sexuality is not independant of a man, but complementary to it. Men feel no shame in admitting their need for a woman. Woman have now been indoctrinated that this is being needy and therefore pathetic.

Woman in touch with their femininity alllows for men to exercise such leadership—such responsibiility— in their families. Feminism on the other hand teaches that this is degrading.

I'm not sure, myself. What I do think is that branches of modern feminism do go overboard and attempt to make women masculine, forsaking everything that is "feminine" and seeing it as weak, degrading, imprisoning.

Just the branches?

I often find that the difference between the sexes is seen as a horrible thing, something to be done away with and tossed out the window, because it is seen as some kind of hindrance to equality.

Reality is denied in the pursuit of an ideology.

I do not understand that notion; we can be different, but still be equal.

When all human life is deemed sacred, there are no higher or lesser degrees of worth.

Embracing our differences does not equal inequality, or mean that we are degrading women and glorifying men.

By embracing masculine values as the norm for wommen too, this is in effect what the brunt of the feminist movement has done. Without their feminine nature, woman in effect become masculinized into shorty men.

Didn't Pope John Paul II make reference to that in one of his encyclicals, or letters? The fact that modern feminism tends to desire to make women into men? I cannot remember.

Popes often make true statements like that.




http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/06/24/why_are_so_many_women_depressed?page=2

Another aspect of feminism that has probably contributed to many women's unhappiness was the rejection of femininity. Feminism was more often the celebration of masculine virtues (for women only, alas) than the celebration of feminine virtues. The latter were usually dismissed as weak, passive, underachieving or even oppressive. There are scores of examples. One is the rejection of feminine dress -- a girl who attends class at almost any high school or college wearing a skirt or dress is an anomaly. Another is coarse speech. A generation ago, men refrained from using curse words in front of women. Today many young women curse as readily as men (I have probably seen more women than men drivers make an obscene gesture at other drivers). Such behaviors were inconceivable when women were expected to act feminine. And, of course, the "liberated" female's celebration of casual sex, throughout history associated with male nature, is the antithesis of femininity.
This loss of femininity may well have contributed to many women's depression. Though in our foolish age femininity is often identified with weakness, it was in fact empowering for many women, giving them a distinct power and identity that was unavailable to men. Women are not generally happy being largely indistinguishable from men.
Which brings us to yet another cause of unhappiness among women -- the effects of all the above on men. Women are generally happier when they have a good man in their lives. And by "good man," I mean not only devoted and kind, but masculine as well. Yet the prevailing egalitarian doctrines have conspired not only to undermine femininity in women but masculinity in many men. Just as women were supposed to forge feminine virtues, men were supposed to relinquish masculine virtues, which have been derided as sexist, oppressive, patriarchal and, therefore, anachronistic.

 

[Gwendolyn]

But what is a single woman, who does not marry, to do, then? If there is no man in her life, can she not be responsible for her own life on her own?

And the quote you shared at the end is great. Celebrating masculine virtues... it is so true.

Feminism itself often seems warped to me.

 

[SolomonVII]

But what is a single woman, who does not marry, to do, then? If there is no man in her life, can she not be responsible for her own life on her own?

.......

The Ideal Wife (Proverbs 31:10-31) Derdo’s Weblog

If feminine and masculine were opposite terms, then to the extent that a sense of responsibility defines being a man as a man, then dependence would logically define the feminine role.
That is just no Biblical, of course, nor is it common sense.
Such subjugation of the feminine to the masculine, of female to the male, is the norm of human society nevertheless— which the Bible is expressly designed to deliver us from!
Willing the tendency of the feminine nature to nurture into an enslavement in which a man's desires are served is a perversion of the biblical message.

Because feminine is not the opposite of masculine, but its complement.

Steeped in the Marxist doctrine as it has been, modern feminism has responded to this subjugation of the female to the male through a conflict model and sought to overthrow the opressive ruling class of males, like any good Marxist would.
Defining the subjugation of women through a conflict model, such as it has been, and seeing the male dominated patriarchy as something that must be overthrown, Is it any wonder that violence against women increases as such feminism becomes a dominant force in a given society?

Men being men are not the enemy. Patriarchal societies built around men becoming responsible for the women they impregnate and the children that they sire are especially not the enemy. This is the norm that any society built on Judeo-Christian values would aspire too. Especially for Judiasm, where marriage is preferable to celibacy, this is the preferred norm.
Single people nevertheless support this norm and sanction this norm by behaving according to the norm.

For the role of father for a man is the highest role that a man can aspire to. A society in which the man is given the responsibility and duty to protect his family is a blessed society.

This is just common sense.
It is not however the message of the feminism that has come to the fore in our generations.

 

[Antigone]

Haven't you people heard of stilettofeminism?