If a mother’s (so-called) “right to choose” means she can choose to kill her baby before he is born, why can’t she choose to kill her baby after he’s born? How about when her baby is 3 years old? Or 8? Where’s the cut-off? … Or is there one?
If a mother’s (so-called) “right to choose” means she can choose to kill her baby before he is born, why can’t she choose to kill her baby after he’s born? How about when her baby is 3 years old? Or 8? Where’s the cut-off? … Or is there one?
… to ensure happy families on earth and in heaven.
The importance of having mothers at home was recognized for thousands of years. It was just common sense. The fathers earned a living, while the mothers were home tending the home fires.
This was not seriously challenged until World War II, and in a major way, later, by feminism. (More on this later.)
It was not easy to pry the American woman out of her home. Her contributions (as nurse, teacher, cook, baker, cleaner, nurturer, etc.) had always been recognized as essential to the well-being and happiness of the family. However, the push for women to get the vote in the 1920s was used as a push to get women out of the home. If it wasn’t very successful then, its time arrived in the ‘40s when World War II called millions of American men to fight for their country. This must have been the moment the Left had been waiting for: a logical call for American women to replace their husbands in the factories for patriotic reasons.
“Rosie the Riveter” was the symbol. In posters and billboards everywhere, curls stuck out of her red kerchief while she took her husband’s place on the production line, making it clear she was a female “doing her part.” And the media loved it. Even when the war ended, they encouraged women to “seek fulfillment” in their lives, not so subtly suggesting that, of course, they couldn’t expect to find fulfillment as housewives. Thus, when the men came home from the war, some women weren’t in any hurry to return to the domestic scene, and many were persuaded that it was more exciting to work outside the home. It was only later that the women were bombarded with the idea that being a housewife was just a job – and that what she wanted was a CAREER. You had to have a career or you were a dull, boring person who didn’t have this exciting other dimension to you.
But overlooked in the scramble to get a job was the question of who would take her place at home? Who would take care of the children? In the beginning, grandma. However, the advent of the commercial daycare centers greatly reduced having to ask grandma to care for her grandchildren so mom could work outside the home.
(The other side of the coin was the devil’s other solution: to use birth control and have fewer children. This contributed to the birth rate being way down across the world.)
Even so, daycare was not the perfect solution, of course. Not only does daycare cost so much that it takes a serious bite out of the extra income that mom brings in, but it is notorious for passing on sickness from one child to another. The problems of the daycare centers have been widely documented. Some are sub-standard, unsanitary, poorly regulated, and run by incompetents, as well as those that are ably and reasonably proficient. There was (and is) a huge disparity between them.
But if the daycare centers provided the illusion that the little ones were adequately cared for, then that seemed to solve the major impediment to mom getting an outside job.
A second major reason that some women left their homes for the job market was the lure of a second paycheck. Where their parents’ and grandparents’ generations had been willing to wait for those extras like new carpeting, nicer homes, and new cars, most of today’s families were persuaded that they didn’t have to wait to have a boat or fancier vacations if the mother of the family was bringing in a paycheck too.
And as to this paycheck, women were told they should expect to earn the same as men. This brought things like the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) into being, opening the door for multiple other items on the liberal/feminist agenda. (Side note for younger readers, perhaps: The ERA might have sounded like a fair and just amendment, but in reality, it would have caused great havoc with our society, negatively impacting American life in general, and the well-being of women in particular.)
Here are just a few of the ERA’s harmful consequences:
1. The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion;
2. The ERA would be used to mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions;
3. The ERA would remove gender designations from bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and hospital rooms;
4. The ERA would not give women any more rights than they currently have; and
5. The ERA would overturn laws and practices that benefit women because they would be viewed as showing preferential treatment to women.
➢ Workplace laws that provide special accommodations for expectant mothers;
➢ State labor laws and guidelines which benefit women who do heavy, manual labor;
➢ Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income; and
➢ Exemption of women from the military draft and front-line combat.
Here is the ERA’s history in a nutshell:
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the ERA in 1972, but by law, it had to be ratified by ¾ of the states within seven years in order to be a part of the Constitution of our country. After untold Conservative efforts to educate people on the dangers of this amendment, the ERA failed to be ratified.
Unfortunately, the Left was able to get a three-year extension, which (thankfully) ended in 1982 without the required number of states ratifying it. (Also, five states that had approved it, rescinded their ratification after better understanding the dangers of the proposed amendment.)
Currently, there is a new push to entice additional states to ratify, with Nevada succumbing in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020.)
End of this brief history lesson.
Let’s get back to our look at women and how they were enticed out of their homes. What had been (disastrously) overlooked was how important the mother was to the family and how the family would suffer in her absence.
Yes, this article focuses on the absence of mothers in the home, but for just a moment let us digress and talk briefly about the absence of fathers in the home. This move was facilitated by a huge change that was thrust on the American ethos with the idea of “single mothers.” This was a new term that was introduced and repeated to legitimize the idea of women “voluntarily” raising their children by themselves. The gradual acceptance of the idea of “single mothers” contributed to the assault on marriage by the huge increase of couples temporarily living together without the benefit of marriage. The removal of the stigma attached to this sinful way of life accomplished the disastrous objective of making it so common that it spread far and wide.
What greatly contributed to the rise of “single mothers” was the destructive welfare system, which increased the monthly check for every baby she bore out of wedlock. It was a money-maker for some. (What does that teach the next generation?)
Another evil result of the absence of fathers in the home was that boys lacked a male role model, and thus, many tended to become feminized, (which may contribute to the confusion in so many young minds as to whether they should use the boys’ or the girls’ bathrooms, for example.)
Returning to our subject of women being absent from the home. Women moved from factory jobs into offices, stores, industries, etc. Home life suffered. Many tried to “do it all” but found it impossible, merely a step along the path toward frustration, exhaustion, and ulcers. Seemingly, common sense would tell you that working at an outside job for 40 hours a week is hardly compatible with a smoothly-running home where laundry is done in a timely manner, beds are changed regularly, nutritious meals are the norm; where children can be listened to, instructed, guided, monitored, etc.
(Note to widows or mothers involuntarily in circumstances where they are doing the job by themselves: You are not included in this disparagement. The valiant job you find yourselves required to do needs no explanation or justification.)
However, it might be instructive to consider some of the possible consequences of women taking jobs outside the home:
1. As mentioned above, the cost of hiring a sitter or paying for daycare is formidable. It swallows a big chunk of that extra paycheck;
2. There is little or no supervision of the children after school. This can’t be a good thing. The children become part of that sad world of Latchkey Children coming home to an empty house;
3. Second car expenses must be figured into any financial cost;
4. More money spent on more clothes for the women;
5. Rushed meals, in many cases more expensive meals, thrown-together with increased fast food elements and convenience foods; not particularly healthy meals;
6. The time crunch leaves little or no time for problem-solving family discussions around the dinner table (where problems often are first recognized and resolved);
7. Guilt at spending less and less time with the children. (There’s always so much to do she doesn’t have time to sit and find out how things are going in their lives, at school, in the neighborhood, etc.) This is also where some strange idea that the student picked up might come to light and be explored, explained, and debunked, if necessary.
8. It often precipitates arguments about whose job it is to (fill in the blank here, e.g., empty the dishwasher, throw the next load in, make the lunches);
9. Frequently can’t scrutinize the children’s friends;
10. Often hasn’t the time to follow up on whether homework is finished or chores completed;
11. Discipline usually suffers;
12. No time for a kneel-down family rosary; and
13. Impossible to monitor children’s time with entertainment, as well as a tendency toward laxity in using entertainment such as TV, video games, social media, or electronic devices.
Now, if you are a traditional Catholic home-schooling family, you may be way ahead of the game because you may not have to worry about most, if not all, of those 13 problem areas listed above. For example, you may not have a TV. And the home-schooling family tends to have a closer eye on who their children are playing with.
And the children don’t need latchkeys, and a rosary always begins the class day, etc. But let’s get real, right? Can being a stay-at-home mother guarantee life will be a bed of roses? Frankly, no. But learning what works (and what doesn’t) goes a long way toward making your load easier. And having the mother in the home is a huge step toward successfully raising and educating your family.
Now it is not pandering to women to point out how indispensable they are in the family. When I hear someone speak condescendingly about women wasting their time (and talents) changing diapers, and making snarky remarks about the “little woman” baking her chocolate chip cookies, I want to sit her down and explain the facts of domestic life to her. (Because it’s almost always “working women” – often guilt-filled – who attempt to disparage the stay-at-home mom.) I want to point out to her that it isn’t vacuuming the house, shopping for groceries, doing the laundry, etc. that make that mother’s job important, essential as those things are. It’s being there:
· to comfort a child with a skinned knee;
· holding her daughter’s hand when she gets her first shot;
· listening to her son’s grievance against the neighbor kid;
· taking him to the orthodontist;
· instructing her daughter how to write a thank you note to her grandmother;
· listening to her spelling-words;
· teaching her son his Mass server’s Confiteor;
· helping her daughter on her first sewing project;
· guiding her son’s preparation for the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test);
· etc., etc.
And that doesn’t even include the obvious things like: making a child’s special birthday dinner, taking the dog to the vet; and two of the most important things: – recognizing that that kid from the end of the block is up to no good, and guiding her son away from him; and also, welcoming home at the end of the day the father of the family.
To sum up, the mother’s job is one of the most important jobs in the world: to create a happy, God-centered family, to make a home that is a good place to be.
The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism
By Mrs. Donna Steichen
Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991
Mrs. Donna Steichen, the author of Ungodly Rage, is a Catholic journalist who attended many “women’s empowerment” conferences in many locations, investigating the feminist movement. Here is part of her biography from a May 31, 2011 interview:
In the 1970s, Steichen began working as a Catholic journalist, writing for her diocesan newspaper. She was also active in the pro-life movement, the Catholic League and religious education.
Long an avid reader of Catholic publications, in the 1980s Steichen became increasingly concerned about the effect of feminism on American Catholicism.
Mrs. Steichen studied religious feminism because, as she explained, “it is the ultimate manifestation” of feminism. She explained further how she came to write her book, Ungodly Rage:
This book is a report on the subterranean phenomena of religious feminism as observed over more than a dozen years. My journalistic investigation began, roughly, in 1977, when Rosemary Ruether, in a keynote address to Minnesota’s International Women’s Year (IWY) meeting, identified feminist theology as a species of [Marxist] liberation theology.
Before we survey what Mrs. Steichen discovered in her investigation of religious feminism, let us first see what feminism is on a broader level, which includes secular feminism.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “feminism” as a theory of equality:
Feminism: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the
Encyclopedia Britannica adds that, in the 1990s, the feminist movement shifted to become more integrated with the racial equality movement and that the (so-called) “third wave” of the feminist movement which began then, redefined women as assertive and powerful:
The third wave [viz., in the 1990s] was much more inclusive of women and girls of color than the first or second waves had been. … the third wave redefined women and girls as assertive, powerful …
This version of feminism is the popular, “mass consumption” version. This is the level in which one encounters it around us every day.
“Rank & file” feminists merely focus on career advantage or in the “empowerment” of not needing to obey their husbands. The “every day”, ordinary feminists don’t look any deeper than that. This is like most Masons who don’t look deeper than the shallow appearance of Freemasonry being a career aid, a networking group, a fraternal society and a social club. So, it easily happens that feminists and Masons seem perfectly normal and good people and that they are friendly and well-intentioned. But looking deeper, Freemasonry is much more insidious and, based on her years of investigation, Mrs. Steichen explains that the feminist movement is insidious too.
In a 2011 interview, Mrs. Steichen notes that the feminists do not define what feminism is:
Question: What is feminism and how does it operate in our society?
Donna Steichen: That’s a good place to start, because if you notice, feminism is rarely defined. In particular, the feminists don’t define it. It is to their advantage not to define it, because most people interpret it as meaning that you’re for women, or that you believe women have a right to be educated or are just as smart as men.
But that’s not what it is about at all. Feminism is about overthrowing the structure of the family and society. It rose out of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [authors of The Communist Manifesto]. They saw that the family was at odds with their vision of society. Owning the factories is not enough; you can’t change society unless you get rid of the family. When you attack the family, you attack society itself, including its institutions, authority, and traditions, as well as the Ten Commandments and God.
Religious feminists, and even secular feminists, want to overthrow God. The religious feminists have set about replacing the Trinitarian God with a mishmash of New Age spirituality, paganism, psychology, and anything that is not structured, that is not traditional, that is not Christianity.
Mrs. Steichen explains the various related levels of feminism in this way:
When feminism is defined as a movement to establish the equality of women, it sounds plausible. But its fruits betray its real nature. Even at its least destructive, it is a tactical falsehood, like the Emperor’s new clothes. It attempts to establish equality between the sexes, which already exists in fact, by forcing everyone to pretend the sexes are identical.
Mrs. Steichen explained the connection of this “religious feminism” to the secular versions, in these words:
Religious feminism is the logical extension of secular feminism into the realm of the sacred. From the beginning its leaders have worked closely with secular and anti-Christian feminists.
Mrs. Steichen remarks that this is the reason the secular feminist Gloria Steinem, in her introduction to the conference “textbook” Goddesses in Every Woman, wrote about the value of the goddess movement. Mrs. Steichen adds that “the ultimate feminist objective is the obliteration of Christianity.” Mrs. Steichen explains that even the leaders of the secular feminist movement know that feminism is, at bottom, a revolution against traditional religion. Mrs. Steichen quotes Gloria Steinem as saying, “Women-Church is the women’s movement.”
Mrs. Steichen also quotes secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan about feminism being, at bottom, anti-God:
When asked what the feminist movement could hope to accomplish in the future, Betty Friedan told reporters, “I can’t tell you that now. You wouldn’t believe it anyway. It’s theological.”
Mrs. Steichen’s book is full of first-hand accounts of feminist conferences. Many of her narratives are quite long and detailed. Here is a representative part of one of her accounts:
At most workshops, there seemed to be a deliberate attempt to draw participants into ritual activities. No one asked me to leave when I declined, but I began to suspect a concerted effort to enlist everyone present in the conspiracy against the “patriarchal” Church through group dynamics. All the rituals I witnessed, and most of the “language and imagery” discussed, were drawn from Starhawk’s books. Clearly, she had become a matriarch of feminist spirituality. …
By Sunday morning, the Mankato conference crowd had declined to about three hundred. While two other feminist services were held down a hallway, some 150 women gathered for the Wiccan rite described in the program as combining “both ancient matriarchal concepts and contemporary feminist issues”. The large room was unfurnished except for a table altar, decorated with corn and gourds, four unlighted candles, a conch shell and a small brass cauldron. Priestesses Patti Lather and Antiga said the service would be conducted in the “Dianic Wiccan tradition”. The women formed a loose circle and followed Antiga and Lather in a vigorous opening chant:
We are strong and loving women;
We will do what must be done,
Changing, feeling, loving, growing,
We will do what must be done.
It was repeated, in accelerating tempo, half a dozen times. Next came a song in a quick folk-blues rhythm. The women sang eagerly, clapping in time, some singing the harmony:
Woman am I, Spirit am I,
I am the infinite within my soul;
I have no beginning and I have no end,
All this I am. …
Antiga called the large circle together again with a blast from her conch shell. The women stood with hands linked, eyes closed, while she led them in the hypnotic “centering meditation”, a “Tree of Life ritual largely taken from Starhawk’s Dreaming the Dark” and almost identical to the one used earlier in Joan Keller-Marcsh’s workshop.
There were sighs and groans. … Around the room, bodies obediently swung forward, heads hanging down, like a circle of rag dolls.
She paused. “Open your eyes, and we’ll begin casting the circle of the east.”
The circle of the east lay on the floor like spokes of a wheel, toes together. Crooning, the women rose slowly, waving their arms, then joined hands and moved in and out from the center, like children dancing around a maypole. They made windy, whistling sounds.
“Welcome, spirit of the east”, said Antiga, lighting the first candle. “Blessed be.” “Blessed be”, the congregation responded.
The circle of the south knelt with foreheads touching the floor, then rose and raised their arms. “Blessed fire”, they intoned. “Fire is transformation, is passion, is beauty, is eternity …. Come join our fire.”
“Welcome, spirit of the south. Blessed be.” Antiga lit the second candle.
“Blessed be”, the group replied.
The circle of the west stood, alternately lifting their arms, then folding them in. “Hear me, Aphrodite. . . sunset. . . intuition. . . life giving. . . deep waters, dark waters”, they crooned, swaying.
“Welcome, spirit of the west. Blessed be.” The third candle was lighted.
The circle of the north knelt, foreheads pressed to the floor. As they began to sway from side to side, they lifted their heads and droned, “Oooom, oooora,” Rising, arms linked, they called out, “North star. Cold. Cold moon dying. Ice. Northern lights. Blackness. Nothingness.” They howled wordlessly. Then they knelt, pressed their heads to the floor again, raised them and, swaying, chanted over and over ….
“Welcome, spirit of the north. Blessed be”, said Antiga.
“Blessed be.” The last candle was lighted, the large circle reformed. …
Antiga moved the smoking cauldron to the center of the circle. Everyone was invited to “cast into the cauldron all that you want to let go of”. Voices called out, “Patriarchy!” “Anger!” “Fear!” “Oppression!” “Lack of time!” “Military mindset!” …
We are three witches from different places”, one of the trio said “I resent being classified with satanism!. . . Satanism has nothing whatever to do with women’s religion! Satanism is a perversion of the white male Catholic religion …”
“Freedom! Freedom!” Kneeling in a circle, the congregation shouted. They pounded on the floor. The shouts became screams, and then a rising roar.
This account, like many of Mrs. Steichen’s eye-witness accounts, demonstrates what she called “feminism’s anti-feminine heart”, because feminism is ultimately a movement of rage and hatred.
Mrs. Steichen recounts how these feminist conferences promote not only feminism and witchcraft (wicca) but also cross-promote unnatural impurity, the murder of the innocent, extreme environmentalism, the New Age Movement, and many other great evils. Mrs. Steichen summarized:
Feminism appears to be the bait, moral disintegration the hook and the occult the dark and treacherous sea into which the deluded are towed.
Mrs. Steichen provides the broader picture of feminism and its goals:
The primary target of secular feminism was the traditional family. … [Before the 1960s feminist revolution,] one can concede that some men demeaned women’s characteristic role. Every era has its own imperfections. But it was a far better society for women and children than the present chaotic one, and few women would not gladly trade their present state to restore it if they could. The feminists did not call on society to value women’s distinctive contributions properly but instead attempted the impossible task of opposing human nature, denying the differences everywhere revealed in experience. Feminists won the battle, and women lost. …
[One of the many evils of feminism is that it caused] an indignant masculine backlash against irrational feminist accusations, and litigation is emerging to erode further men’s protective instincts toward women.
[In summary, Mrs. Steichen explains that] Catholic feminism incorporates all the errors of secular feminism and others more profound. Its major target is the religious belief that underlies the traditional family and society.
A key part of feminism’s attack on the family, is an attack on patriarchy. Mrs. Steichen explained this fact:
Under the feminist assault, patriarchy has come to be regarded as odious, even by patriarchs [such as the Catholic Church’s hierarchy]. Feminists denounce it as atavistic, inherently inequitable, irredeemably oppressive. But they misunderstand the nature of women’s rights. Recovering those rights will require that patriarchy be reclaimed. Selfishness, like pride, is gender neutral. So patriarchy has sometimes been abused by sinners to justify their selfishness. But the present agonies of the family, of secular society and of the Church all result from failure to meet patriarchal responsibilities, understood and lived as St. Paul outlined them. …
The term patriarchy refers to the male-headed family form and social system expressed in Scripture and existing everywhere in human society. In the Church, it is a title referring to bishops who rank just below the Pope in jurisdiction, though Catholic feminists use the word to mean the male priesthood and the entire male hierarchy. In all cases, it is properly an office, not a declaration of qualitative superiority. …
Feminist mythology to the contrary, the Church did not inflict inequality on women. Catholicism in fact elevated women to a status they had never enjoyed in pre-Christian societies by venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary as the perfect model of human response to God, by consecrating marriage as a sacrament, by recognizing the family as the basic unit of society and by constantly teaching that [certain intimate] acts are the unique privilege of the married state.
Mrs. Steichen then beautifully explains the roles of men and women, as God intended them:
The Church teaches that creation exists to raise up souls to God. Woman’s natural vocation is irreplaceably at the heart of that purpose, where human nature is most plainly seen to be neither simply animal nor purely spiritual but a mysterious combination of both. … In the “domestic Church” of the family, where the future Church is born, they are the ones most immediately responsible for the physical and spiritual formation of the new generation through the transmission of faith and culture. Their wisdom and generosity are essential in shaping the family as a holy and enduring center where each member is cherished not for what he does but because his immortal soul is of incalculable value. It is in the family that all mankind’s labor is transmuted by love into the human and the personal.
Parenthood is a work of eternal significance in which both parents share, but by nature woman is the one most deeply engrossed. Her vocation is so much a part of herself that she becomes submerged in it; she is compelled by its demands always to be centered outside herself. Certainly, motherhood is a demanding work, and it sometimes brings anguish as well as joy. When a woman’s husband and children rise up and call her blessed, [Prov.31:28] she doubtless deserves their praise. Some who deserve it never receive it; there are heroines of holiness struggling at the brutally difficult task of raising and supporting their children alone. But even in the most painful circumstances, a mother usually finds that her baby awakens in her a previously unknown passion of protective love. To have a life work so absorbing that it makes us forget ourselves is a great human privilege.
Fathers are called by that name because they reflect God’s capacity to generate life outside Himself, a high honor and an awesome responsibility. A father’s role is of great importance; many women have lately discovered from painful experience how vital it is to family stability and the healthy psychological and moral development of children. But normally he must be engaged elsewhere much of the time, dealing with the world, providing for his family’s material needs. Only a fortunate minority of men find a work significant in itself. For most, the knowledge that they are supporting their families is all that gives their labor meaning.
Patriarchy, properly interpreted, means men meeting their vocational obligations. When a husband fulfills his responsibilities as St. Paul prescribes, his role is not one of domination but of service. As husband and father, he is to negotiate with the outside world, provide for and protect his family, guide and direct it in consultation with his wife. In normal human relationships, such consultation is broad ….
Because feminism is, at root, a rebellion, Mrs. Steichen draws a parallel between Eve’s rebellion and modern feminism:
Cunning, the serpent draws Eve into dialogue. She knows the limits God has set, but she listens as the deceiving voice lures her with a promise of autonomy – the promise that she can be her own God. When she yields, her disobedience separates her from God and from Adam. Contemporary Catholic feminists are part of a vivid, and ruinous, reenactment of that ancient tragedy. Their history strikingly recalls Eve’s susceptibility to false promises, her rebellion against legitimate authority and her presumptuous ambition to make herself “as God”. Women, it seems, are more prone than men to such fraudulent spiritual enthusiasms.
Mrs. Steichen continues by astutely showing men’s very heavy responsibility for feminism:
Men, in contrast, seem especially tempted to irresponsibility. Adam chooses to evade the very duties of leadership that Eve covets. He is not deceived by the serpent, but he eats the forbidden fruit anyway. [1 Tim 2:13-14] Perhaps he cannot bear to be separated from his bride by her sin. Perhaps he is intimidated by the prospect of confronting her. In either case, the head of the first family disobeys his Creator and betrays his patriarchal obligations with his eyes open.
We can see parallels to Adam’s sin in men who abdicate their legitimate authority and obligations in the family. Some use the slogans of feminism to seduce women into [impure] relationships outside of marriage, then coerce them to [kill innocent life]. Some deny their wives motherhood or deprive them of the right to live their maternal vocation with full attention, by driving them into the labor force. Some welcome any excuse to remain immature and carefree boys by shunting their responsibilities onto their wives.
Mrs. Steichen’s book is an eye-opening peek behind the veil of the most virulent form of feminism, to help us see what is at stake in feminism, for society and for the family. We recommend this book.
Catholic Candle’s afterword: the Catholic Life is the Answer for all of Society’s Ills!
The virtuous Catholic life is the solution to all our social ills and we should live this Catholic life fully. The devil apes this genuine Catholic solution through his own counterfeit “solutions”, one of which is feminism and the “women’s equality” movement. This is like the devil aping genuine Catholic social teachings with the false “solution” of Marxist liberation theology.
Because of Original Sin, men (and women) don’t always live up to their vocations and responsibilities. Men should show respect for women and, more than that, they should honor women, cherish them and be chivalrous. This is the true and Catholic way of life.
Men should show this in many ways, large and small, e.g., changing a flat tire for a woman motorist at the side of the road, opening a door for a woman (although she is capable of opening a door herself), giving her his seat on a crowded train, offering to help her carry her heavy packages, even when she is capable of lifting them herself, etc.
Men should be courteous to women, charitable, respectful, polite, attentive, considerate, patient, thoughtful, obliging, listening well, not failing to listen because they are formulating a new comment while a woman (or a man) is talking.
God made men to compete with men. God made women to be man’s helpmate, not his competitor. That is why the Catholic Church overcame paganism to instill into a man to be a gentleman and to be gallant toward women.
Girls and women are children of God (as men are too). Women and girls have their own role and dignity in God’s Plan. God did not put them on earth merely for men’s selfishness (any more than men are on earth only for women’s selfishness). Rather, God made women to collaborate with men in the work God intends them to accomplish, in the roles for which God created them in the family.
We should treat all women as images of Our Lady.
The weightiest lesson of all comes from the law to love our neighbors as ourselves, which St. Paul applies to women (wives) in particular:
Thus, ought husbands also to love their wives as their own bodies. Who loveth his wife, loveth himself, for no one ever hated one’s own flesh (Eph. 5:28-29).
The Catholic Church has ever been the leaven fostering the dignity of women. This is what the Catholic Church has to say in the context of the family:
“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it.” Ephesians 5:25. This means that, as Christ gave His Life for His Church, a husband should give/devote his life to his wife.
Our Lord teaches us the generosity we should have for each other, and husbands for their wives:
“Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his
friends.” St. John’s Gospel, 15:31. Husbands should remember that their wives should be their best friends.
A man who loves much does not “count the cost” and he sacrifices gladly everything for his friend (especially his wife and children). “If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he shall despise it as nothing.” Canticle of Canticles, 8:7.
We should take to heart, also as regards the women in our midst (and men too), what our holy Redeemer taught us:
As ye would that others should treat you, so do ye likewise to them. … So be compassionate as your Father also hath compassion. Judge ye not, and ye shall not be judged. Condemn ye not, and ye shall not be condemned. Forgive ye, and ye shall be forgiven. Give ye, and it shall be given unto you. They shall give into your bosom good measure, pressed down and shaken together and overflowing. For it shall be meted unto you again with the same measure wherewith ye have meted.
St. Luke’s Gospel, 12:31, 36-38.
 May 31, 2011 interview found here: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/
Ungodly Rage, page 237.
 Ungodly Rage, page 17 (bracketed explanation added).
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-third-wave-of-feminism (bracketed words added for clarity).
See, e.g., Custodi Di Quella Fede, Encyclical Of Pope Leo XIII (On Freemasonry), 1892.
 See, further information in Ungodly Rage, page 122.
Quoted from the May 31, 2011 interview found here:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/ (bracketed words in the original).
 Ungodly Rage, page 237 (reformatted with bullet points for easier reading; emphasis added).
Ungodly Rage, page 50.
 Ungodly Rage, page 58.
 Ungodly Rage, page 79.
 Ungodly Rage, page 117-118 (emphasis in the original).
 Ungodly Rage, page 20.
 Mrs. Steichen explained: “Born Miriam Simos in St. Paul, Minnesota, Starhawk was given dubious respectability, and introduced into many Catholic settings, by Rev. Matthew Fox, O.P., the founder and director of the Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality (ICCS).” Ungodly Rage, page 34.
 Ungodly Rage, page 34.
 Ungodly Rage, page 35.
 Ungodly Rage. pages 36-39.
 Ungodly Rage, page 165
 We use delicate terminology in this article, as Catholics must. Read the Catholic teaching on this principle here:
 We use delicate terminology in this article.
 Ungodly Rage, page 27.
Ungodly Rage, p. 225
Atavism is: recurrence of or reversion to a past style, manner, outlook, approach, or activity. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atavism
 Ungodly Rage, page 226 (bracketed euphemistic words used for delicacy).
 Ungodly Rage, page 227.
Ungodly Rage, page 223.
Ungodly Rage, page 223 (bracketed explanations used for delicacy).
 Here is one way in which Pope St. Pius X taught this truth: “there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion”. Our Apostolic Mandate, August 25, 1910.
 For an overview of the roles that God gave to women and men, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-role-that-god-gave-to-woman-and-the-great-work-of-her-life.html
Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth:
Jesus saith to him: I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me.
Truth is the mind’s conformity to reality.
Therefore, when a man (or society) rejects Christ and His teaching Church, he is rejecting reality.
But man is a creature of habit. He is often inconsistent and takes a while to come to see the full consequences of positions he has already accepted (or already rejected). In other words, when a man rejects reality concerning one truth, he might continue to hold other truths which are inconsistent with his new opinion and it might take him a while to reject the reality of those further, related truths.
Thus, for example, when man rejects the Catholic Church’s authority, he might continue to believe in the Bible’s authority, although the Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church.
Similarly, Protestants who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, did not immediately reject a man’s authority over his wife. For a time, those Protestants only took rebellion from authority “so far”, and only gradually did their rebellion spread further, to other authority given by God and willed by Him.
But when a man rejects part of reality, he embarks on a reckless path leading to rejection of other parts of reality. That is, rejecting a part of reality inevitably leads to rejecting more of reality – the only uncertainty is how long it will take to reject additional, particular parts of reality.
Thus, the Protestants reject the reality of the Catholic Church’s authority and this leads them down the road to feminism (which is rejecting the reality of a husband’s authority) and also to rejecting the different and unique roles of the sexes.
Perhaps the Protestants who had first denied the authority of the Catholic Church, had thought it absurd to deny that man is the head of (and authority over) his wife. This is because, while denying the Church’s authority, the difference between the roles of the sexes is a natural and supernatural truth which remained obvious for a time, even to Protestants.
But when man begins denying reality, the denials continue and become more unhinged from reality. Man becomes more blinded to what had previously been obvious to him. Man progressively denies even those things which are according to Nature and to common sense. For example, man comes to accept that a male can become a female simply by deciding he is a female.
Without God’s help, man does not stop and he cannot stop descending down this destructive road. Man accepts more and more false ideas he would have previously thought were absurd and impossible to accept. Just like early apostates from Catholicism would have thought feminism to be absurd, likewise people would have thought it absurd, a few decades ago, that a male would become a female simply by deciding that he is one.
This delusion is not merely a few deranged individuals fooling themselves with this crazy fantasy – like believing they are Napoléon. Society now accepts this absurdity in public and now viciously attacks those who publicly deny such an obvious delusion.
Similarly, society now accepts that a person can be neither male nor female if he simply decides he is neither. Society calls this person “non-binary”. This delusion is a direct attack on Nature and on Sacred Scripture, because:
God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
People accept these delusions because the rejection of Christ does not end by simply rejecting Him. He is the Truth and the Author of Truth. By rejecting Him, man is led to progressively reject more and more aspects of reality. Nor does he stop with these gender delusions.
Until man goes back to God and to His Catholic Church – which will happen only through the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart – the steady descent of (blind) society will continue.
There are many additional delusions – even more extreme and more irrational – which are ahead for blind and unrepentant mankind. What are those future delusions? Perhaps one of them is society publicly accepting the absurdity that people are cats, dogs, hippopotamuses and dragons when people decide that they are. Society has not yet publicly accepted these delusions but they already exist on society’s fringes – like the gender delusions existed only on the fringes until a few decades ago.
Perhaps also, society will publicly accept the delusions of people claiming that they are whatever age they choose for themselves.
We might think society could never be so blind as to accept these delusions. However, who could ever have predicted a few decades ago, that society would publicly accept and tyrannically insist (as it does now) that you are whatever sex you say you are, and that you can “change” your gender whenever you choose to do so, by changing your mind.
We can glimpse the future in a survey by the Family Policy Institute in Washington which showed that many college students are ready to accept that a person is whatever gender, race or age he claims to be, no matter how absurd the claim is.
This acceptance of delusion in place of reality, is part of God’s punishment for apostate man rejecting Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth.
When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything!
The truth is priceless! Compromising the truth leads to blindness, delusion, and destruction!
No “advantage” – including being at peace with those around us – is worth the infinite “cost” of compromising.
Pray for the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart!
Let us thank God every day for the Traditional Catholic Faith and pray hard to keep it in all its purity!
Let us profess the Faith, whole and inviolate, until our dying breath!
 St. John’s Gospel, 14:6 emphasis added.
I answer that, As stated before, truth resides, in its primary aspect, in the intellect. Now since everything is true according as it has the form proper to its nature, the intellect, in so far as it is knowing, must be true, so far as it has the likeness of the thing known, this being its form, as knowing. For this reason, truth is defined by the conformity of intellect and thing; and hence to know this conformity is to know truth.
Summa, Ia, Q.16, a.2, respondeo, emphasis added.
 See, e.g., this news report: 6-foot, 5-inch male wins girls’ running event, named ‘Woman of the Week’, reported here:
 See, e.g., these news reports:
❖ Construction workers arrested, fined, fired for laughing at men dressed as women, reported here:
❖ Protest at public library shows LGBT movement won’t stop until it dominates everything, reported here:
Whatever doubts people have about such delusions are whispered behind closed doors because the public levers of society are against them. Such doubts always occur when swallowing the devil’s delusions because man has an intellect and retains a nagging doubt whenever he accepts “black as white”, i.e., any lie of the devil. This gender delusion is like many other lies accepted by society, such as the acceptance of divorce even though people understand that it breaks the couple’s vows on their wedding day that they will be faithful to each other until death.
The longer society accepts a particular lie – whether concerning divorce, changing genders or anything else, the more people will be accustomed to taking the lie for granted.
 Marriam-Webster Dictionary has designated the word “they” as its word of the year for 2019, in part because this word is “established in the English language” as a word now “used to refer to one person whose gender identity is nonbinary” (i.e., neither male nor female).
 Genesis, 1:27 (emphasis added).
 Woman claims to be a cat:
 Man claims to be a dog:
 Man claims to be a female hippopotamus:
 Man claims to be a dragon:
 Sixty-nine-year-old man in court battle to get his birth certificate changed to reflect the age he “feels” himself to be.
Adult man claims to be a six-year-old girl.
Interestingly, the only idea these students had much difficulty accepting was the suggestion that the 5’9” tall interviewer was really 6’5” tall, as he told them he was. Id.
 Emphasis added. This quote is commonly attributed to G.K. Chesterton although we don’t know specifically where it is found in his writings.