National Offend a Feminist Week!

Please use the sharing buttons!  Thanks!

I hope all the regular readers of the Fishwrap, Call to Action’s army of Willie Nelson Impersonators (of both sexes), and pro-abortion catholic democrats, and the Irish Association of Catholic Priests enjoy this post I found at True Confessions of a Prodigal Daughter, who writes, among other things:

Some who stumble upon this dusty little blog may wonder, what is National Offend a Feminist Week and how did it start?

Well, it begins with a brilliant reporter named Robert Stacy McCain.

You see, McCain started this “celebratory week” of tweaking feminists back in 2009. It’s all in fun, but also a great excuse to focus on why many of us hate feminism. And by “us,” I’m referring mostly to women. Because we absolutely hate the fact that so many feminists want to lop all women together in supporting the most destructive ideology ever created since the dawn of time. No wonder Marxists love them. Angry, jealous, bitter misery loves company.

And so, I’m going to do something I’ve never done before with this blog.

I’m going to write an entry every day this week about why feminism sucks.

[...]

Feminism is destructive. In order to gain power, they have to destroy what they see as the status quo. And to feminists, the status quo is marriage and motherhood. These two societal institutions are also linked to Christianity, so of course, that has to be destroyed, too. All under the guise of “freeing” women from their chains of oppression.

[...]

OORAH!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Lighter fare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to National Offend a Feminist Week!

  1. benedetta says:

    Huzzah!

  2. olh says:

    Done. All I had to do was to announce to my colleagues (at the Catholic high school where I teach)that my wife and I are expecting our 5th child…and we’re happy about it. The icing on the cake is that our oldest is about to be 6. For the self-professed feminist hippy, the only redemptive thing seemed to be that we only have one boy. Maybe, though, I’m being too harsh. Nevertheless, my family and I are apparently a walking offensive billboard to feminism whenever we go out.

  3. wmeyer says:

    Much as that picture deserves denigration, I don’t think it’s entirely a fit with this topic. There are mindless men in the shot, too. And the worrisome thing is that the people in that picture appear to be almost in ecstasy at the thought of another four years of the tyrant.

  4. anilwang says:

    olh, if you did want to move more offensive, you could state that your oldest daughters love playing with several dolls and dream about having a big family.

    Nothing is more offensive to feminists than solidly pro-life women that loves babies. No-one is more reviled in the media. The worst pro-life men get called is chauvinists. Pro-life women are called *a lot* worse.

    Virgin Mother Mary is the antithesis of everything feminists stand for.

  5. Maxiemom says:

    Waiting for the “kool-aid” to be served. Oh, wait, they have already consumed it.

  6. dillyra says:

    I think Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand said that the Blessed Virgin Mary is our example of what true feminism is and that the female left (liberals) have corrupted the term for their purposes. If true feminism celebrates the beauty of God’s intention for women, i.e. motherhood, etc., then what is the proper term for those on the left that have perverted the term feminism? I’ve heard the term femi-nazi used, but is there a more proper term?

  7. St. Epaphras says:

    Unfortunately, all feminists are not female. The male feminists are the ones that make me gag. Do they think they are doing women any favors? Even some priests seemingly have to replace masculine pronouns with whatever doesn’t show masculinity, especially when the reading is about God the Father or Jesus. That is plain insulting. Sometimes I want to get up and storm out of the church when I hear that done — on purpose — by a PRIEST. Come on guys, be proud of who God made you and don’t apologize for it by taking sides with feminists. Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy. Real men are priceless.

  8. Bryan Boyle says:

    Betcha none of them have ever:

    1. Had a real job
    2. Not been responsible for their own upkeep
    3. Been in a church in something less than a geologic age
    4. Ever lifted a finger to help someone else unless there was something in if for them.

    You sure this isn’t a picture of LCWR groupies?

  9. Long-Skirts says:

    AMERICAN WOMAN

    If it is right
    And wasn’t wrong
    Our breasts would have been
    Five miles long.

    So working Moms,
    Who leave their young,
    Could nurse at work
    No baby clung

    To Mommy’s arms
    That now makes bread
    Oh not that wheat
    The green instead

    Where printed, “…God we trust”
    With zest -
    In everything…
    But Mommy’s breast!

  10. anilwang says:

    Bryan Boyle,

    I wouldn’t be too quick to stereotype.

    1. Many professional women are against motherhood, having to deal with a committed relationship rather than a sex on demand, and other things on the feminist agenda precisely because they get in the way of a career. Family gets in the way of a career for men and socializing too but much less so.

    2. See above

    3. More than a few “Churches” like the United Church and Metropolitan Church are really feminist social groups. (E.g. I visited one during Mother’s day and to my shock I discovered that both single and married men, women, children, and even dogs were given flowers because all are in their own way “mothers”).

    4. This point is hard to dispute since any example I can give can be refuted since neither of us know the heart of feminists.

    The only thing I can say is that any so-called feminist (woman or man) that targets the unborn, children and family and institutions that foster them is more interested in the destruction of womankind than its nurturing. They are no more “feminist” than the so-called modern “humanists” that claim that animals and robots have more rights than a human unborn child.

  11. Maltese says:

    Let us not forget that Griswold did less to empower women, and more to empower men to objectify women.

    I am a Traditional Catholic “feminist” inasmuch as I think the 60′s and 70′s gave less rise to women suffrage, and more to male objectification of women.

    My oldest daughter wants to be a police detective, and I tell her that’s fine, but it’s equally noble to be a stay-at-home mom. Thank God my wife of five children can stay home with them; it is a blessing.

  12. AnnAsher says:

    Maxiemom, I was so logging on to make a Kool aid comment. Laughing is better than crying. I love National Offend a Feminist Week. I’ll begin plotting my saintly plan

  13. Laura98 says:

    Gee… all I had to do was stay home and take care of my daughter after she was born. And when she was old enough to go to school… I did not, I repeat, did NOT return to work. I actually made some home-made cookies from time to time! I sewed some costumes for All Saints Day Parades at school, then I really raised a ruckus when we decided to homeschool!!! Horrors!!! We learned to make cookies and bread together! Some of the family is still in an uproar… but I really don’t care.

  14. mamajen says:

    Just joined Rush’s new “Rush Babes for America” page on Facebook. I’ve also spent the day caring for my son, tidying the house and later I will make dinner, as usual.

  15. poohbear says:

    As a woman, I am embarrassed for the girls in the photo. The only person they should be looking at like that is their (future) husband.

  16. SonofMonica says:

    “Feminism,” (like “marriage” these days, apparently) is one of those words that has different meanings to different people. I would consider myself a feminist, if the term were properly understood to mean pro-dignity, pro-equality, and pro-femininity. Women voting, women holding positions of authority, all that stuff doesn’t scare me in the slightest, and I welcome it. Women deserve respect, and not just patronization. They deserve real choices, not lives dictated to them by men. I believe that. But that apparently isn’t what feminism is, anymore.

    Popularly, the term “feminism” has come to mean (1) in favor of killing babies, personally and in the aggregate; (2) against marriage and procreation, even as choices for other women; (3) reduction of sex to recreation and even abuse; (4) stealing money from people to give to certain women; and (5) insistence that men cannot hold or express an opinion about any issue that affects women.

    Let’s talk about number (3), above. To get an idea of what feminism means today, just look at what the New York Times #1 bestseller is. It’s a book called Fifty Shades of Grey. The book has been praised by NYT and feminists across America as a great piece of fiction and as some sort of socially-acceptable “mommy porn.” These feminists claim the book empowers women. What’s the book about? Why, it’s about a wealthy man who meets a 22 year old virgin and convinces her to sign a “sex contract” wherein she agrees to engage in various BDSM sex acts (don’t worry, they explicitly rule out sex with children and/or animals, in writing), and whereby he gets to control what she wears, how she intimately grooms herself, to whom she may talk, and specifically how she must please him in the bedroom, among other things. He is allowed to physically and mentally abuse her. He manipulates her every move and interaction in life, and he treats her like a 2-bit porn star in graphic, horrid (even bloody) detail. He controls every aspect of her life, and won’t let her tell anyone about their relationship. He stalks her and invades her home and her privacy. He hits her, and not just in the bedroom where it is supposedly consensual “fun.” She recognizes it as abuse, but she can’t leave him. He has tons of money, and he’s just so charming, after all, and she just knows she can change him!

    He is every bit the stereotype of the 1950′s abusive husband, yet the new feminist sees this not only as harmless entertainment, but as empowering to women because “she signed the contract” and therefore ostensibly has the “choice.” Go read the Amazon.com reviews. These people look up to the abusive man and the naive woman as role models. For many, the book doesn’t go far enough. Seriously. This book is the new “Twilight” or “Harry Potter” series. This is what book clubs are reading. This is what moms of six children are reading and discussing and praising and fantasizing about while their husbands (no doubt) are on the computer. This sick, twisted, bondage-filled, sexually perverse and woman-beating tale. There are articles online about how men who object to the depictions in this book are the ones who are sexist, since “it’s not up to any man to tell a woman what she may choose to do or fantasize about.” We have reached a point in our culture where we celebrate the most foul and abusive acts ever perpetrated upon a woman as feminist, because of the red-herring of “choice.”

    Apparently modern feminism recognizes beating and objectifying women as a legitimate lifestyle choice, a fetish to be explored “if that’s your thing,” just one orientation among many. I don’t think that’s what the cause was supposed to be about.

  17. Kathleen10 says:

    Thanks for the heads up, SonofMonica. I notice that every human endeavor which does not openly associate itself with Jesus always ends up deteriorating into what is base, vulgar, or dead-end. Hence this book. We all see the endless spiral, and it seems to affect almost everything! There is little in our cultural life that does not seem endlessly corrupted, “vulgarized”, and just seriously demented. But this, as I said, appears to be what inevitably happens when Jesus is left out of it’s purpose.
    Personally, I absolutely love being a woman, for many reasons, but also so I can consider myself a member of the “crowd” and use it to spout off on feminist topics. Only not in the way feminists do, because I take the polar opposite viewpoint and disappoint them with it. I dislike being contrary, but to poke feminism in the eye gives one a grand feeling. So many lies, so much destruction, so many people, happily fooled. Feminism is right up there on the destructive “ism” list, and begs to be taken down a peg as often as possible by as many people as possible. Admittedly, this is much tougher for men to do. It’s almost inadvisable. But while men can’t say much about women’s roles, etc., they can say plenty about the sacred nature of life, and the fact that say, the marriage covenant is between one man, one woman, and God. On these topics, no one should be silenced.

  18. Dies Irae says:

    I’m not quite sure what is so captivating. It reminds of the way Christine looks at the Phantom. Kind of creepy.
    I don’t even have to try to offend a feminist this week; I do it every time I go into public with my 8 younger siblings. Actually, every time I go to church. :)

  19. PostCatholic says:

    You are the very first clergyman I have ever seen to issue a call asking his faithful to offend or insult another person for the sake of it.

  20. Supertradmum says:

    The Church in many places still has to address the problem of weak men. I know many, excellent Catholic traditional women, who feel called to marriage and children, surrounded by 30 something men and even older,who refuse to make a commitment about anything-marriage, priesthood, religious life. That feminism has grown is the downside of men who wanted to be macho without the servant-hood called for in the Scriptures. Jesus is the model. Ephesians 5:25-27

    The world is littered with broken covenants and women, who are wired for great sacrificial love, desire to give their hearts to someone, something bigger than themselves. They want to love and are denied the normal ways to do this by several generations of men who do not make any decisions about anything. I met three young men this week who wonder why they do not have girlfriends. Women do not want to be a girlfriend, they want to be a wife, a mother, in covenants.

    Feminism came out of the weakness of men not loving their wives and girls growing up in these types of relationships at home. To blame women for the feminism is like Adam blaming Eve. God punished him because he did not love his wife enough to say no to evil–the first weak man– and took the easy way out. Sorry, I firmly believe that even Catholic men have not responded to Christ’s call, through St. Paul, to love your wife life yourself. Where are the commitments? Where are the real men? Women fall into false ideals and false dreams when they do not have a real relationship. Let Christ be our example is all things, even love, even eros…

  21. Midwest St. Michael says:

    Dear Post Catholic,

    Maybe our dear clergyman host was having a go at the following:

    hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrb-l)
    n.
    A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

  22. Phil_NL says:

    @Supertradmum

    Not to be overly cheecky, but by all means, send over those women! There’s a marked shortage of those over here.
    There are plenty of examples of women who feel they’re not ready for the married life, for motherhood (and in some cases, probably rightly so), not to mention career aspects. Last but not least: as marriage is for life (and beyond, though should both make it to Heaven one may hope maritial trouble is over) a certain reluctance, on behalf of both sides, is entirely natural. And substitute ‘finance’ for ‘girlfriend’ and it has long been common to have an intermediate stage of some length between first acquintance and marriage.

    In all, I think the point you’re trying to make is the wrong one. The main problem posed by feminism is not the warping of the vision of manhood or womanhood, but an excessive emphasis on the group: the generalisation of women (all good, or all victim) and men (all lazy, dominant or irresponsible) alike. It makes a connection between moral charcateristics and physical characteristics. And while there are plenty of physical differences (thank God), as well as phychological ones, in terms of inherent morality there are few (and then derivative) if any.
    Yet feminism works on the assumption that there are such moral differences, and profound ones at that – in so far feminism acknowledges morality, usually it phrases in terms of power, which is their surrogate for ‘bad’ – and places them centre stage. That gives rise to a ‘men vs women’ mode of thought, which is the real problem. And if men feel such a battle exists, and that they’re on the loosing side, well, yes, then certain behavior logically follows in some cases. But the root cause is the conflict model inherent in feminism (and marxism, interestingly enough).

  23. Phil_NL says:

    oops, ‘fiance’, not finance, and ‘psychological’, not phychological.

  24. Banjo pickin girl says:

    I am not against motherhood and everything great like that but I do owe a debt to the women who went before me who have enabled me to have the great career I have had. God has not seen fit to send me a husband so I have had to make my own way in the world. In a former time I would be very poor off indeed.

  25. Banjo pickin girl says:

    Phil, the two words (fiance, finance) are related, ha ha.

  26. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Supertradmum,

    To blame women for the feminism is like Adam blaming Eve.

    A very interesting and probably true point. Taking of course into account that after all… points of decency and courtesy nonwithstanding… in so far as only the facts are looked at… Adam was not entirely incorrect in blaming Eve.

    For the rest, I second what @Phil has said. Except that I wouldn’t replace girlfriend with “fiancée” only, but also with “fiancée hopefully soon to be”, which in quite Catholic circles without any allusion to immorality is called a girlfriend around here. (Whereas the Italians, I’ve heard, are more easy to change to “fidanzata.”) “In love, engaged, married”, as our old children saying goes, indicating some time for the first and second status.

  27. Pingback: Which Is Worse: Gang-Rape or Racism? : The Other McCain

  28. Pingback: Don’t Confuse Hierarchy With Patriarchy

  29. Supertradmum says:

    My point on Adam was that he did not have to sin. Neither did Eve, of course. But, he had himself to blame as head of the family, as it were.

    As to marriage, I stand by the experience of too many single men not making up their minds about life. I know three right here. Also, I stand by the idea that women want to love and sacrifice for love. That is one reason they fall prey to false leadership and charism.

    Banjo pickin girl, ditto

  30. Pingback: Offend A Feminist: The Gang’s All Here [Updated Below] « The Camp Of The Saints

  31. St. Epaphras says:

    Supertradmum (at 4:53 a.m.) Thank you for your insightful comments above about women. Yes, we want to love sacrificially but we also need to respect the man we are committing to. “Where are the real men?” You said it. Thankfully there are men — looks like some read this blog — who are both strong and kind, and I thank God for them! Phoney feminism (not genuine respect and esteem for women) has hurt men as much as it has women. We don’t want wimps; sorry, can’t respect them. Mamas, please be countercultural. Don’t let your sons grow up to be spineless.

  32. Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Iron Head : The Other McCain