How Some Traditional Catholics Are Jumping The Rails Over the Clancy Debacle

In the aftermath of the Lindsay Clancy mess, particularly bizarre reactions of some so-called feminists and the copycat killings of children that regretably seem to be increasing, some unfortunate noise is reemerging from some in traditional Catholic circles.   And no, I will not link to them for I refuse to direct traffic to their sites.

According to their, well, mysogynistic thinking, the actions of a few nut-jobs in recent weeks indicate that all women are too driven by their emotions and sentiments to be entrusted with anything outside of their homes.  In particular, that means that women are incapable of casting votes during elections.  Of course, they are singularly incapable of actually holding governmental office, according to these reactionaries.

Some history is in order here.  We just celebrated the 25 anniversay of the 9/11 attacks.  Those attacks during which thousands died were conducted by men.  Did they receive accolades like Lindsay?  They most certainly did, in Muslim countries that are certainly patriarchal in structure.  Were there any "copycat" killers?  Those of us in the DC area are witness to that.  Recall the "beltway shooters": John Mohammed and Lee Malvo terrorized the Maryland and DC area until their apprehension in a truck reststop on I-70.

Then there is Nazi Germany, responsible for the Holocaust that killed 6 millions of Jewish extraction.  They too won accolades from the patriarchal Nazis.  Any copycats?  Well, there are the so-called "Aryans" and various skinheads that have wreaked some damage; I am unaware of the total extent of that.

Then there are nut-jobs like Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, etc.  With all this mass-murder throughout the decades, I have heard no suggestion that men are incapable of governance because of male violence.  

No one doubts that there are sins that are more prevalent among one gender than the other.  Men seem to have more trouble controlling both their sexual and violent tendencies than do women.  We have heard ad infinitum that men need to control and master those tendencies.  In no way have we heard that men should step away from responsibility so that those tendencies should be coddled.

Now we see how feminists have done a number on women by suggesting that their gender weaknesses should be coddled.  Regrettably some Catholics seem to agree.  Women do tend to let sentiment override common sense.  That is not just some adorable little foible upon which we should smile indulgently.  When anyone lets sentiment guide decisions as opposed to logic and common sense, they commit sins against the Virtue of Prudence.  There's no sugar-coating that.  As men must be taught as boys to master their sexual and violent impulses, so must women be taught as girls to bring their sentimental tendencies under strict control.  Else, how can either of them raise their own children, let alone assume responsibilities in the larger society?

So we, both men and women, have sins to be mortified, some of them influenced by our respective genders.  I think we've seen and heard exhortations to men to reign in their passions, with those exhortations being followed by the examples of St Bernard of Clairvox and St Francis of Assisi.  Ladies, are we prepared to do the same with our tendencies to let emotions cloud our thinking?  This is not optional.  Both genders need to hold themselves and each other to the highest Christian standards, without making excuses for each other AND without making brash generalizations about one gender because of the harmful ideologies harbored by a few.