Simply a Return ro Mainstream Liberalism

(Image from US Catholic)

Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Erika Bachiochi pushes back against the extremes (radical feminism to women's inferiority) of Catholic views about women by asking Catholics to take another look at the "feminist" Pope John Paul II (1920-2005): [bold added]

As a Catholic legal scholar, I have been an outspoken critic of a radical feminist ideology that treats transgenderism and elective abortion as core elements of “gender equality.” I agree with ["The Case for Patriarchy" author Tim] Gordon that those ideas are antithetical to Christianity. But by misreading fringe views as central to the early cause of women’s rights, he and other like-minded reactionary Catholics now claim that all feminism is “diabolical” or, in the words of the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, “one of the worst things to ever happen to Western civilization.”

John Paul II would beg to differ. Thirty years ago he called on women to “promote a ‘new feminism’ ” and thereby transform “culture so that it supports life.” Seven years earlier in his apostolic letter “On the Dignity and Vocation of Women,” he corrected historical interpretations of Scripture that had assumed women’s inequality. Affirming husbands’ responsibility as leaders, the pope wrote that “in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.” The “new feminism” he described wouldn’t imitate “models of ‘male domination’ ” but rather work to “overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.”

It would be disrespectful of the thought that went into Pope John Paul II's letter to excerpt a phrase or two, so your humble blogger won't do that. Let's just say that the apostolic letter spends some time on Genesis 3:16 ("Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you") and why the interpretation that women are inferior to men is incorrect.

In politics, religion and culture much of what people call "conservatism" is simply a return to mainstream liberalism as it was 15 to 30 years ago.

Holy Alliance

(Photo from tom-holland.org)

Two political opponents--radical feminism and evangelical Christianity--came together in the 1980's to outlaw pornography (they failed). Since then this unexpected alliance has reconstituted itself whenever their interests align--for example, in questioning whether transgender women are truly women.

Historian Tom Holland sees another cross-over point--The Christian Roots of #MeToo: [bold added]

“#MeToo would not have any impact—would have no resonance,” Mr. Holland says, “if it were not culturally taken for granted that men do not have the right to force themselves on their inferiors. This is a cultural given in the United States, that men do not have this right.”

It is, however, “a very, very culturally distinctive assumption.” In ancient Rome, for instance, “the essence of being a male citizen was that you had the right to penetrate pretty much anyone who was not a citizen, or the wife of a citizen, or the chattel of a citizen.” In that world, the “sexual binary” was not between men and women but between those who had power and those who lacked it.

The Christian roots of #MeToo are another example of inconvenient historical truths, like how slavery eventually became unconscionable due to the Christian belief that every human being is a child of God, or how the Republican Party was a far less racist party than the Democrats (Lincoln was a Republican, KKK leaders were Democrats, Republicans helped Lyndon Johnson pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

If we know where we're from it helps us get where we're going.

No Woman in History has Exceeded Her Achievement

Ferdinand and Isabella - wedding portrait (Wikipedia)

This is a time when we need strong women leaders, so it's appropriate to remember one of the all-time greats, Queen Isabella, without whom the blessings of Western Civilization would not have come to the New World.

From America’s Hidden History by Kenneth C. Davis [bold and bullets added]:

In 1469…teenage cousins Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile were married. Isabella and Ferdinand were a remarkable couple whose successes in

uniting several fractious small kingdoms into a nation [Spain],

eliminating the last vestiges of Islamic power in Iberia,

revving up the Inquisition, and

setting Spain on a path of world domination
were extraordinary by any measure.

“No woman in history has exceeded her achievement.” - Hugh Thomas, Rivers of Gold

Isabella turned down arranged marriages and chose to marry second cousin Ferdinand, who was no shy consort material. By the age of 17 Ferdinand had already led troops into battle and fathered children by two different women.

In modern tabloid parlance, he’d be headlined a “hunk.” In fact the pair would have been People magazine’s dream royals. The tall, blue-eyed beauty Isabella and the muscular Ferdinand would have dwarfed most contemporary celebrity couples.

Moderns will quail at the brutality of those whom history has labeled great, but one truth is that in Isabella’s time everyone behaved savagely, the Moors whom “Ferdabella” drove from Spain, the French whom the Spaniards battled in the New World, and the “Indians” in what was to become America.

Nevertheless in the annals of atrocities there are few rivals to the cruelty of the Spanish Inquisition, which tortured and killed Protestants and Jews during Isabella’s reign, or the death and destruction wrought by the Spanish conquistadores who came after Columbus and Isabella. Another Spanish first---years after Isabella's reign but a direct consequence of the forces that she set in motion--was slavery:

Menendez also brought along Africans as "laborers" [in 1565], which should properly give Spain---not the English in Jamestown in 1619---the distinction of introducing African slaves to what would become the United States.

Not all of Isabella’s “achievements” may be praiseworthy, but they had a profound influence on the world that exists today.

Top Five Reasons BHO Avoids Women

The President is taking some grief from feminist supporters because he surrounds himself with men both in and out of the White House. To these eyes it’s perfectly understandable.

The top five reasons Barack Obama doesn’t like to associate with women:

5. Grilled by Michelle every time he works late with a Rhonda or a Tina. If it’s Rahm or Timmy—no problem.

4. Have to waste more time dressing up--guys don’t care if you wear the same tie.

3. Do you know what it’s like to live in a household full of women? Work is a sanctuary, and golf/basketball is “me time.”

2. When he plays basketball, they always look at his legs.

And the number one reason that Barack Obama doesn't like to associate with women:

1. Michelle's suspicions are right--they're always hitting on him.