She's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from being in the SSPX. For rather inexplicable reasons, being in the SSPX for nearly 4 months now and receiving personal catechism didn't instill in her a feeling of obedience toward the hierarchy or empathy for their uncompromising views. Instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and sexual paranoia. The bad news is that she doesn't seem to have gotten over it yet.
The views of SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson, particularly those on women, have caused her much grief. She takes much offence at "women being fit only for the kitchen and bedroom", and has been airing her grievances at me, expressing her frustration with every opportunity at this supposedly widely-held perception of women.
I don't know the people who tell her these things, but isn't it obvious in modern society, women have never had it easier?
They enjoy freedom of choice in the job market, or can opt to stay at home and raise children (or do both). They are perfectly free to use marriage and divorce as businesses, enriching their personal fortunes by doing nothing more than providing sex. They are allowed to manipulate men with sex and tears to get whatever they want. They have been granted permission to usurp traditional male jobs yet still - with bold-faced hypocrisy - expect men to finance their social lives. They can choose to serve in the military without fear of losing their lives in combat. They expect to be able to denigrate the male gender and treat men like emotional punching bags without protest. They force men to endure "sensitivity training" to pressure them into becoming more like women.
All of this is apparently absent in the SSPX, and all she hears about the fairer sex comes from Bishop Williamson; "true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls". That the SSPX wishes its female adherents to return to the state of women before the 1960s should come as no surprise to some. In most affairs, ranging from liturgical practice to taste in fashion, the SSPX is generally conservative.
Whatever the case may be, one could not afford to be ignorant in the age of Google and Wikipedia - one sifted through the mess that is the Internet and found writings from our friend, Bishop Williamson. Now, as much as some women find them antiquated and bigoted, I personally found them to be quite offensive toward men.
In an October 13, 2007 column on the subject of female Doctors of the Church, the bishop contended that "any woman set up in public view is liable to arouse unclean desire in men".
One would think that Williamson has never laid eyes upon a womyn priest before. They inspire much, but I don't any of it constitutes an "unclean desire" in men.
The SSPX has long denounced the use of women in advertising, and the good bishop's words merely follow the trend. As much as I agree with the former, I find the latter to be insulting and contemptuous - with those words, Bishop Williamson has joined the SSPX to centuries of belief that men have unquenchable sexual drive and are unable to control their urges. It's only natural, of course.
Why, this puts the good bishop more in league with the local mullah than with any Catholic bishop today. Whatever the case, any woman who takes Bishop Williamson's words seriously ought to have her head examined. After all, this is someone who condemned The Sound of Music as virtually pornographic!
I cannot speak for all masculinity, but one can safely say that men are NOT aroused by the sight of ANY woman - not even those who have been deprived of female company, like those working in the military, or in engineering. "But hold on, Constantine," you may be yelling at your computer, "what about the men who rape elderly women and have intercourse with animals?" Well, do all men rape elderly women and have intercourse with animals? Certainly not. Just like not all Moslems are terrorists.
On a side note, rape is often a crime of power and control rather than purely that of sex - but that is a story for another time.
Who are these women who have "set [themselves] up in public view"? They are myriad; we have police officers, models, politicians, ballerinas, insurance agents, actresses, salesgirls, bank tellers, singers, royalty, famous-for-being-famous types, waitresses, etc. The list goes on and on.
Are we to say that all these women arouse unclean desire in men? Why, the poor men won't be able to leave home without suppressing serious testosterone urges first - but since men are incapable of doing so, how are we to solve this troubling issue?
Those who have propagated that message have given us a solution: keep women covered up and out of the workplace, a la Yemen. Better yet, why not arrest every man, as he is likely to commit a criminal offence? After all, growing on every man's body is an organ which may be an accessory to rape.
This goes to show how ridiculous the notion is. Most women would like to have the power to arouse men on sight, but unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not the case. Men do not arouse as easily as certain people would like us to believe. Why, as many have already pointed out - it is often used as a tool to keep women chaste and submissive. This is not to say, however, that women should now do the reverse and flagrantly display their uh, feminine virtues with utter abandon.
Being chaste is a good thing, but it should not be achieved on a foundation of lies told about men.