Anglican Mainstream

By Anthony Esolen, Ruth Institute

Lust perverts language itself, calling sex “safe” or “protected,” and cohabitation “honest,” and relationships “mutual,” which are nothing but forays into a jungle, where the strongest and most cunning survive.

Several weeks ago, Saint Valentine’s Day at my school came and went. There was no dance. There was no concert. There was no ice cream social. There was no party for trading little gifts. There was no showing of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon or Marty or Goodbye, Mr. Chips or Casablanca. There were no foolish and innocent flirtations on the way to class.

But there was some small notice taken of the holiday. A group of women, as has been customary for several years, rented space at a local theater to stage there what they are not allowed to stage at our Catholic college, the dreary, hapless porno-twaddle called The Vagina Monologues. A few hundred of our students made the trip across the city to watch it, including some young men motivated by a sort of homeless chivalry. The stated justification for the show is to protest violence against women—though, in Eve Ensler’s initial version of the play, the only violence against a woman was a lesbian drug-rape of a teenage girl, and that was celebrated as liberating.

So it’s come to this: Even lust now is gray and dispirited. The girls celebrate Valentine’s Day by putting on a series of vulgar and angry skits, to instruct the boys in how rotten they are, and the boys, most of whom have no particular desire to treat girls badly, roll their eyes and go along with it, or file it away with all the other petty resentments of our lonely contemporary existence.

Of course, there isn’t a feminist on my campus who will admit to these young women that if they really want to be protected from violence, they should marry a decent man and stay married to him, because such married women are less likely than any other group of Americans to be the victims of a felony.

Read here

Read also:  Should Men Hold Doors open for Women? by Peter Hitchens

By Hilary White, LifeSite News

On March 11^th, a few days before the papal election, one of the Catholic world’s most eminent philosophers, Alice Von Hildebrand, celebrated her 90^th birthday. Von Hildebrand taught philosophy at a private, secular college in the US for 37 years, but is today perhaps best known as one of the leading proponents of the “New Feminism” that was brought to the fore under the papacy of John Paul II.

By Dale O'Leary

The recent Document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the collaboration of men and women begins with a brief discussion of “currents of thought which are often at variance with the authentic advancement of women”.

For the last half century, society has struggled over how to reconcile the fundamental equality of men and women with their undeniable biological differences.

During the 1960s women protested against laws and customs which treated women differently. Governments responded by enacting legislation guaranteeing women equal rights under the law, equal access to education and equal economic opportunity. Women quickly took advantage of these opportunities. The number of women pursing education increased, as did the number of women in the professions, and in elected and appointed government offices.

In the 1970s, the feminist movement which had encouraged these changes was co-opted by radicals who saw women as the prototypical oppressed class and marriage and “compulsory heterosexuality” as the mechanisms of oppression. This current of thought drew on Frederick Engels’ analysis of the origins of the family. In 1884 Engels had written: “The first-class antagonism in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between men and women in monogamous marriage, and the first-class oppression with that of the female sex by the male”.

By Julian Mann

One wonders whether the feminist establishment in the General Synod would insist on inclusive language in the following statement:

Original Sin…is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingengered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness and is of his own nature inclined to evil (Article 9 of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion).

The reason for that suggestion is because of the politically correct doctrine of sin believed by feminists. According to their doctrine, men are originally abusers whereas women are originally victims. Redemption for humankind in PC soteriology is achieved by the male tendency to domination being eliminated by 'progressive' education, or more accurately indoctrination, and women being liberated and empowered.

This dogma has been thoroughly absorbed by the current House of Bishops, hence their guilt about being a 'boys' club' and their sense of spiritual inadequacy without having women present at their meetings. Female empowerment is after all the spiritual cure for fallen maleness, so their PC piety is genuinely offended by the all-male group they belong to.

Read here

By Francis Phillips, Catholic Herald

I got some stick last year when I wrote in a blog after the Olympics that the thought of women punching each other in a boxing ring depressed me. This view has nothing to do with the characters of the young women so engaged; it is my battle (using words rather than fists) against these latter decades of feminism which has made such a pugilistic scenario possible. Over boxing I wrote, “It might seem a victory in the on-going feminist struggle of women’s complete equality with men, but it strikes me as a hollow victory; a blow against the nature of womankind; indeed, a step backwards for civilisation.”

Last week we larned that in the US women are going to be allowed to engage in front-line combat duty alongside men. I see it as a further downward slide; what will be next?

Soon, as Yeats wrote in the context of the Great War, “mere anarchy” will be “loosed upon the world.” I am not being alarmist; nor am I alone in my opinions here; Robert Reilly in a good article in Mercator Net, challenges US General Martin Dempsey who has proclaimed that “The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.” As Reilly comments, it is ideological pressure that has created this supposed requirement – not military necessity.

He points to research in 1994 for the Heritage Foundation which has shown that “the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle.”

Read here

By Melanie Phillips, Mailonline

The chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, decided last week to use the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos to make some observations about women in the workplace.

She said that companies should be able to ask women employees whether they intend to have children.

Crumbs. Did she really say that?

It is, of course, no more than basic common sense to say that if a woman has children, this will very likely affect her attitude to work. At the very least, it surely merits a discussion with her employer.

But such is the equality madness, so absolute the prohibition against speaking about such matters and so great the opprobrium directed at anyone who does, that when someone actually says the blindingly obvious like this it comes as a shock.

Indeed, Ms Sandberg revealed that her firm’s own lawyer had been nervous about her suggesting that women employees might be different from men. Heaven forbid!

In fact, most of the rest of her message was militantly feminist — attacking gender stereotypes, criticising women for not being more assertive at work and urging them not to downgrade their ambitions just because they had children.

Nevertheless, she also believes that employers and female employees should be open with each other about how such women will juggle work and family — because women have different priorities in life from men.

You may find these differences praiseworthy or, as Ms Sandberg clearly does, most regrettable — but that’s just how it is.

Yet this patently obvious fact is unsayable because of the shibboleth that women behave in exactly the same way as men and therefore have to be treated in an identical manner.

Read here

By Tim Stanley, Telegraph

by Hilary White, LifeSite News

Fewer young men in the US want to get married than ever, while the desire for marriage is rising among young women, according to the Pew Research Center.

by Julie Henry, Telegraph

In one of the most controversial shake ups in its 102 year history, the organisation has launched a consultation that could lead to significant changes to the promise Guides are expected to take when they join.

It would be the first major reform for the Guides, which boasts more than half a million members, to be initiated under Julie Bentley, its new chief executive.

The former head of The Family Planning Association who took over in November ruffled feathers when she described the Guides as “the ultimate feminist organisation”.

In a statement, the organisation said: "The Promise is guiding's beating heart – it is the core expression of values and the common standard that brings everyone in guiding together.

"Over the past few years we have heard from more and more girls and leaders who struggle with the wording, particularly in interpreting what it really means to girls today.

"Girlguiding UK is committed to retaining a Promise that is in line with its original principles, but we know it is crucial that girls and young women understand and believe in the words they say."

Currently, Guides promise to do their best, love “my God”, serve “the Queen and country” and keep the Guide law.

Read here

By Rosa Silverman, Telegraph

The breakdown of the family can be partly blamed on feminism, the feminist Labour MP Diane Abbott has suggested.

Ms Abbott, the shadow public health minister, urged the left to recognise that problems such as obesity and alcoholism, often stem from such breakdown.

Feminists should be able to talk about these issues and they should not be confined to the pages of women’s magazines, she argued.

She told The Guardian newspaper: "As a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families.

“In the 1980s, we used to say: 'A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.'

“The more academic version was: 'The family is the site of women's oppression.' So those of us who came of age at the height of feminism had very mixed views about the family, since it seemed to be defined as a heterosexual thing with a certificate, children and mum at home."

But “some kind of stable family structure” was vital and was what most people want around them, she said, adding: “I do not think we should abandon that terrain to the right."

Read here

By Peter Hitchens, Mailonline

All sorts of people who don’t believe in God and wouldn’t know one end of a canticle from the other have suddenly developed bilious, enraged opinions on bishops.

Now that (as universally and inaccurately reported) women have been told they can’t be bishops, the country is aflame with simulated rage.

[...]  What’s really going on here is a frenzy of dogmatic equality, part of a general campaign to abolish the old idea that men did some things, and women others.

Funnily enough, it only applies to certain jobs. I’ve never seen a campaign for male dinner-ladies, or for female dustcart drivers. It’s the traditionally male preserves, with a high standing, that get the treatment.

[...]  If you’re interested in the truth rather than the propaganda about the Church, the critics of women bishops don’t actually oppose them being appointed.

The radical campaigners (who seem to me to put ideology before God) could have had their mitres years ago if they hadn’t insisted on unconditional surrender from the small but significant group who don’t agree with them.

All these dissenters want is some firm safeguards for two groups of Anglican Christians who, in all conscience, can’t accept the authority of a female bishop in their own lives.

[...]  I know some of these people. They are serious and devoted servants of the Church, some very Catholic, and so loyal to ancient tradition, and some very Protestant and so bound by the words of the Bible.

Several of them are women who have risen high in male-dominated professions. It is precisely because they are so devoted and serious that the Church should not drive them away.

Read here

By Steve Doughty, Mailonline

A leading abortion rights campaigner has been named as the new chief executive of the Girl Guides.

Julia Bentley – who for five years ran the campaign group supporting abortion rights and sex education – said that she was delighted at her appointment to ‘the ultimate feminist organisation’.

However, her role at Girlguiding UK has raised eyebrows among some religious groups and those who are concerned about the premature sexualisation of girls.

Under Miss Bentley’s leadership the fpa – formerly known as the Family Planning Association – has distributed condom demonstrators for use by girls as young as 11 and opened an online sex shop selling sex toys and aids to customers of any age.

Girlguiding UK yesterday said that girls face challenges growing up and Miss Bentley will ‘ensure guiding continues to meet those challenges head on’.

Read here

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSite News

America’s compulsive feminist impulse has pushed women into ever-more unconventional roles, but if Marine Captain Katie Patronio has her way, one of them will never be infantry combat.

By Cristina Odone, Telegraph

By Bill Muehlenberg

By Hilary White, LifeSite News

What kind of man sneaks away under cover of darkness from his own sinking ship, leaving nearly 4200 passengers and crew to fend for themselves? What kind of men knock aside old ladies, little girls and young mothers to get to lifeboats first? Why, modern men, sexually emancipated men who have been raised on the tenets of feminism and our “contemporary” mores.

What can an expression like “women and children first” mean to modern men who have been taught all their lives that women are nothing more precious than sexual playthings, and children nothing more than a disposable burden?

The capsizing of the Costa Concordia, one of the biggest cruise ships plying the Mediterranean, filtered into the English language press a week later and everyone has now heard the recorded phone conversation in which coast guard captain, Gregorio De Falco, furiously orders the ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino, to return to his vessel. Schettino replied by repeatedly lying, while trying to flee in a lifeboat.

Passengers were left to rescue themselves aided by hired entertainers and a few crew members. One woman was quoted saying, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats.” Another passenger, a grandmother, said, “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.”

Read here

From Ancient Briton

by Melanie Phillips, Mailonline

Emmeline Pankhurst must be revolving in her grave. At the weekend, various cities around Britain hosted demonstrations by thousands of young women dressed — or to be more accurate, half-dressed — as sex objects, all supposedly in the cause of ‘feminism’.

Hold on a minute, you say — wasn’t feminism supposed to be a revolt against treating women as sex objects?

Indeed — but the ostensible aim of these ‘Slut Walks’ was to negate the impact of any judgments upon women for how they may flaunt their bodies in public — by deliberately dressing in the most sexually provocative manner possible.

Emmeline Pankhurst, born Goulden, suffragette and founder of the Women's Social and Political Union must be revolving in her grave

These in-your-face parades started in response to a Canadian police officer who, in a talk about public safety, suggested that if women didn’t want to invite sexual assaults they should avoid dressing like ‘sluts’.

Cue a tsunami of ludicrously over-the-top protests that this officer had effectively blamed women for their own rapes.

Such an inflation of well-meaning, if incautious, advice into a thought-crime against half the human race triggered an international explosion of self-indulgent and absurd posturing.

Dozens of Slut Walks have now taken place, of which the weekend marches around Britain were but the latest example.

Read here

By Catherine Marcus, Conservative Home

“Reclaim your inner slut”, say the organisers of Slutwalk – a movement? which originated in Toronto in protest at a comment by Mark ?Sanguinelli, a police officer, to a group of students that they should avoid?dressing like sluts, in order to help prevent sexual attacks. Here in Britain, who knew? our inner slut had been lost? The acreage of goose-pimply? flesh on display, covered by the briefest of belts – oh sorry, that’s? a skirt – on most local high streets on a Saturday night would suggest? that the nation’s inner slut hasn’t gone anywhere.

By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint

For some time now, I’ve been telling you that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that provides us with a rational way to live in the world. It’s the only worldview that we can live with.

We simply can’t live with the logical outcomes of other worldviews like secular naturalism, new age-ism, or Freudianism.

And thanks to the daily news, I’m never short of material to prove it. A group of mostly female students is suing Yale University for allowing a “sexually hostile environment” to exist on campus.

The women, of course, have a point. After all, when frat boys are allowed to parade around the old campus chanting “No Means Yes,” or to hold up signs that read “We Love Yale Sluts,” I guess you could say that’s a sexually hostile environment.

But may I ask a question? What did you expect?

The disgusting, intimidating behavior at Yale — and on many college campuses — is a classic example of the post-modern impasse. For nearly 50 years, academia, the feminist movement, and post-modern society have embraced sexual freedom as the ultimate good.

And the feminists led the way. They wanted to control their bodies; to be free from any consequences of sexual license.

Well, guess what. If you promote sexual license — especially on campuses — what do you get? That’s right. Sexual license. You approve and encourage immoral behavior, and then you’re surprised when young men don’t behave like gentlemen? Are you kidding me?

Read here