Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Problem of Feminism
I decided to write this today, because I've had the subject of feminism brought to my attention, and I felt there was a lot about the subject that people just didn't understand, but which deserved to be looked at.
A lot of people today wave feminism as though it were a flag of inherent virtue. It's a widely-held philosophy today. However, the truth is that feminism has some pretty nasty problems, and it probably won't take long to explain what they are.
-----
1. Feminism, as a philosophy, does not focus on how to do the right thing.
This is a big one. The sad truth is that many of today's most popular philosophies are purely negative in nature. They will eagerly point out where people went wrong, but not how people should go right again.
In the case of feminism, this is -very- pronounced, since nothing seems to unite all feminists except opposition to "oppression of women," which is just an expression of what some people have done wrong if taken literally.
In practical terms, what this means is that feminism cannot inspire unity in its adherents, because there's nothing to unite around. Some claim that men are inferior, some don't. Some claim that women should be allowed to dress however they want, and some don't. Some are political activists, and some aren't. Some claim that abortion is a woman's right, and others, correctly, think this view is absurd and immoral.
The whole point of even -having- a philosophy is to learn the truth. What kind of truth can you learn when your philosophy divides people so much? This is problem number 1.
-----
2. Feminist philosophy recognizes no difference between "equality" and "sameness."
Another big one. If pressed, certain feminists will answer the first problem by saying "we believe in equality between women and men," even though many don't believe this. The problem is that being "equal" to men is not the same thing as being "the same" as men.
Roman Catholicism recognizes the fundamental equality between women and men; that each is a child of God, and therefore, each has equal value and equal human rights. Therefore, those who say they're feminists because they believe that women are people too should consider switching to a Roman Catholic view of philosophy.
However, what Catholicism does -not- teach is that women and men are the same. They are -not- the same. In fact, no person is the same as any other person, and therefore, while certain basic rights should be extended to women, as to men, it is ludicrous to suggest that each person should have the same opportunities. We simply don't, and that's how the world goes.
Professor Stephen Hawking will never have the opportunity to be a bodybuilder. My neice will never have the opportunity to lift a thousand pounds. I will never have the opportunity to walk on the moon. My grandfather will never have the opportunity to be young again (at least in this life.) Yet, these are opportunities which -others- have, no matter how badly we might wish we had them. We're not all the same. Life's tough.
Yet, feminism recognizes no difference between being of -equal worth,- and being -the same in terms of the opportunities that one is afforded by society.- These things -are not- the same, and therefore, feminist philosophy has a large problem here. If you blame every difference in society between women and men on inequality, you simply have a wrong understanding of what it means to be equal.
-----
3. Many feminists and feminist leaders give feminism a bad name.
This comes, really, in two flavors. First is the fact that many; perhaps most leaders in the feminist movement are radicals with little or no respect for men. Many have even been quoted as saying that men are inferior, worthless or pathetic by comparison to women, and -most- support some kind of intrinsic evil, such as the scourges of abortion and/or contraception, or the absurdity of women priests.
The second flavor is that many feminists are kind of ignorant with regards to how governments are supposed to work. By this I mean that they often expect -the government- to provide the missing opportunities discussed at the end of problem 2, and this is not the job of the government. The government receives its funding from the people as a whole; the -commonwealth,- and is supposed to use it to promote -the common good.- Not the interests of pushy lobbying groups representing minorities.
"But women aren't a minority!" You might say. Yes, that's certainly true, but self-professed feminists are. Make of that what you will. In either case, many feminists and feminist leaders give the movement a bad name.
-----
4. Feminism has a tunnel-vision understanding of women's history.
Though feminists will claim to support "women's history month," they will almost always use it to discuss poor, downtrodden women who were oppressed by rich, white guys sometime within the last hundred years, and rebelled. Almost never will you hear about Cleopatra, or Joan of Arc, or Eleanor of Aquitaine. There's a reason for this, which I'll explain in a moment.
The true history of women in the world is that in most nations up to the time of Jesus, women generally were given very little respect. Barbaric nations bought and sold women like cattle, and this was especially obvious in societies that claimed to respect law, such as ancient Rome, where the wife of the governer wasn't permitted to even voice an opinion on matters of state, and Jerusalem, where the testimony of women was considered inadequate in court. Pretty much the only way that a woman could attain power was by being born royalty in the absence of a brother.
Suddenly, along comes Christianity, and for the first time, people are told that all men and women have equal worth in the eyes of God, and that they should strive to treat each other as equals. Everything changed after that.
Some people still chose to treat women as inferiors, but all of a sudden, it wasn't the status quo anymore. You could treat your wife with respect and honor, and single women could work for money without being looked down upon for it. There were still certain jobs that women were badly-suited for, thanks to their weaker upper bodies, but by no means was it normal to see them as inferior and useless.
This continued until rather recently. European (and thus American) upper classes began to have less worries about what Rome would think after the dawn of protestantism, and therefore, less fear of imposing their will on the lower classes. They developed stuffy standards of etiquette by which certain types of activities and work just "weren't womanly," and this same reasoning was applied to industrialized work and voting over the course of the last century; the use of a popular custom to try to justify excluding women from things for which some of them were perfeclty-qualified, just because they were women.
Whether you agree that women should work in industrial manufacturing, or whether you agree that they should vote, the fact was that there was tremendous opposition to these things in the popular mindset, until about the dawn of the second world war.
At that time, men were going off to war, and women were needed to comprise the manufacturing workforce. Rosie the Riveter was created to encourage women to do hard, industrial work, manufacturing supplies and ammunition for the troops, yet, there was no real controversy about it. Men were doing something, and women were doing something. Everyone was working to help their nation as best they could, and when the war ended, so did that.
Women were laid off or had their pay docked by the thousands after the ending of the war, and while some women agreed to take the lower-paying jobs, or to return home and find other work, many realized that this was a serious problem, which needed a serious solution. This is where feminism began.
The feminist movement, as it exists today, started out as an attempt to correct this discrimination against women in the workforce, and soon, women were working in office jobs and doing industrial work again. It was a success. It had worked. However, the leaders in the feminist movement, for whatever reason, decided not to take advantage of this success, and instead keep doing what they'd been doing for a while; telling people that women were being oppressed, and that they were needed to correct it.
While there are still cases of women being oppressed, the story told by modern feminists is very different from the one you would have heard in the late 50s. The modern feminist remembers the ancient societies, which treated women like dirt, and the American 1950s, in which women were universally expected to be homemakers and nothing else, then just skips over the rest of human history. They skip over all of Christianity, and the progress that it brought to the relationship between men and women in those times among the poor, since after all, the poor didn't write it down. They skip over the more recent successes in women's suffrage and office jobs, because that would mean that the feminist lobbyist should be laid off, and you know they're not going to do that to themselves.
This is done for a reason. By concealing the role of Catholicism in improving the rights of women throughout the last two millenia, the feminist makes feminism look like the only bright spot in thousands of years of misogyny; the only ones who ever let women do any work in all of human history. However, that's a rather transparent lie. They're not the only bright spot, and they -certainly- are not the only ones who ever let women work. Women have always worked; especially poor women, who are always in the majority. They just didn't do the same work as men (plowing, smithing, masonry,) because it was too strenuous or backbreaking. This only became a matter of discrimination during the industrial revolution, when work of that sort became less common, and all of this is a -very- recent development.
Feminism simply doesn't speak the truth about history, and this is a big problem with it.
-----
5. Modern feminism, as a cause, is mere sex-based factiousness.
I hesitate to say this, because I don't like to make broad, sweeping statements, but if you take a look at any major feminist institution, and then at what they support, you will find that they will support anything that seems like a cause for "helping women," and oppose anything that seems like it might increase the rights of men. They also oppose things which really -do- help women, like forbidding them to have abortions.
The reason I use the qualifier "as a cause," is that many people who consider themselves feminists are not associated with or involved in any of these organisations, nor have they even heard of many of them. Still, these groups do exist, and they have a lot of support from feminists. There's simply no excuse for that. In just a few decades, these groups have turned a legitimate request for fair jobs and a greater role in society, into a gaggle of lobbying groups, united by radical sexism.
I can appreciate the need of feminists to support the rights of women. In fact, I agree with it. However, you can't support rights by encouraging evil.
-----
6. Feminists base their understanding of morality on what they believe the world owes women.
This is the last big problem, but in my view, the biggest one. Our understanding of morality needs to be based on the value of the human person, and their human rights. Those rights are life, bodily integrity, certain social and cultural liberties, personal respect, freedom to seek truth, freedom of moral speech, choice in terms of what one does for a living (within ethical guidelines,) truthful information, gaining an education from our society, opportunity for some form of great responsibility for the gifted, correct worship of God, free discussion of religion, choice between raising a family or remaining celibate, the right to educate one's own children, to work on our own initiative, in the kinds of work we're suited for, in exchange for a just wage, the right to private property, to meet with each other, form groups, set non-immoral goals for those groups, and criteria under which people can join, the right to live in our own country, or move to another, and finally, to participate in the wellbeing of our society. Those are -all- the rights that human beings have, and they are the same for women as they are for men.
Feminism in the modern age, however, doesn't accept any concrete list of rights as valid, because that would involve setting a goal which, when it was reached, would necessitate the dissolving of the feminist movement. Instead, they make up new "rights" out of wholecloth whenever a woman wants something, with the most bitter examples being abortion and women clergy. No woman has any right to kill another human being because she feels like it, or to tell God what role he should let her play in his plan.
As long as feminism fails to grasp a proper basis for its moral claims, it will be, and become, increasingly immoral, and that's the problem with feminism.
Heretics
By G. K. Chesterton
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I've had less time to read recently, due to my new job not being on a bus route, but I did still manage to squeeze in "Heretics" over the last month or so, and I have to say, I was very impressed. It's somewhat dated, to a degree, since the people discussed by Chesterton in the book are dead now, but I'd say it's one of the most entertaining works by him that I've read; making several essential points along the way.
In this book, Chesterton addresses the works of such men as Rudyard Kipling, Whistler, George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells. Even if you're not very familiar with the works of these men, Chesterton's humor and wit in explaining the problems with them provide both an explanation of who they were and where they went wrong, and also quite a number of good jokes and humorous comparisons, which makes you want to keep reading.
I don't recall that many instances in this book that upset me, which is telling by itself, but I do remember a few of the best points that Chesterton made in this work.
To start with, when talking about Wells, he addressed the issue of scientific humility; which can be identified by the fact that those who possess it imagine grand things, recognizing themselves to be small. Adventuring, he said, is for the unadventurous. I admit, there's probably a lot of truth to that. The more adventurous a protagonist is, the harder it is to get excited about his adventure, or to be impressed by it, which may be part of the reason why the fiction of (for example) Tolkien and Lewis was so magnificent, and remains so popular to this day.
Later in the book, he replies to the notion that "there are many different moralities all over the world, all different from each other" by making a comparison.
He said "suppose you were to say 'camels are different all over the world, some have six legs, some are green, some have scales, some are triangular, etc... They're so different!' Well, why do you call them all camels in the first place? How do you know a camel when you see one?"
The point, clearly, is that just because we -call- something a morality, doesn't mean that it -is- a morality, nor should we refer to everything as "morality" which we do. I love this stuff.
After making many good points, similar to these, Chesterton ends the book by responding to the "Art for Art's Sake" crowd, by pointing out that no really good art ever exists for its own sake. They wanted to remove all dogmas from art. He pointed out that the only really good and popular artists were the dogmatic ones, whether their dogmas were right or not.
I have almost nothing to add to this book. Chesterton's writings were so exceptionally good, and advocated such exceptional good sense, that they didn't become popular among the public as a whole, but I think he's one of the finest authors I've ever read, and this book is one of his finest works.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I've had less time to read recently, due to my new job not being on a bus route, but I did still manage to squeeze in "Heretics" over the last month or so, and I have to say, I was very impressed. It's somewhat dated, to a degree, since the people discussed by Chesterton in the book are dead now, but I'd say it's one of the most entertaining works by him that I've read; making several essential points along the way.
In this book, Chesterton addresses the works of such men as Rudyard Kipling, Whistler, George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells. Even if you're not very familiar with the works of these men, Chesterton's humor and wit in explaining the problems with them provide both an explanation of who they were and where they went wrong, and also quite a number of good jokes and humorous comparisons, which makes you want to keep reading.
I don't recall that many instances in this book that upset me, which is telling by itself, but I do remember a few of the best points that Chesterton made in this work.
To start with, when talking about Wells, he addressed the issue of scientific humility; which can be identified by the fact that those who possess it imagine grand things, recognizing themselves to be small. Adventuring, he said, is for the unadventurous. I admit, there's probably a lot of truth to that. The more adventurous a protagonist is, the harder it is to get excited about his adventure, or to be impressed by it, which may be part of the reason why the fiction of (for example) Tolkien and Lewis was so magnificent, and remains so popular to this day.
Later in the book, he replies to the notion that "there are many different moralities all over the world, all different from each other" by making a comparison.
He said "suppose you were to say 'camels are different all over the world, some have six legs, some are green, some have scales, some are triangular, etc... They're so different!' Well, why do you call them all camels in the first place? How do you know a camel when you see one?"
The point, clearly, is that just because we -call- something a morality, doesn't mean that it -is- a morality, nor should we refer to everything as "morality" which we do. I love this stuff.
After making many good points, similar to these, Chesterton ends the book by responding to the "Art for Art's Sake" crowd, by pointing out that no really good art ever exists for its own sake. They wanted to remove all dogmas from art. He pointed out that the only really good and popular artists were the dogmatic ones, whether their dogmas were right or not.
I have almost nothing to add to this book. Chesterton's writings were so exceptionally good, and advocated such exceptional good sense, that they didn't become popular among the public as a whole, but I think he's one of the finest authors I've ever read, and this book is one of his finest works.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Hooray! I'm Catholic!
By Hana Cole & Joanna Steege
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I recently gave the movie "the greatest miracle" one face down from a perfect score in enjoyability because of its tendency to feminize the heavenly hosts and treat Jesus and Mary like people without distinct personalities. The same, in a sense, is done by this book, yet I feel no reservations about giving it a perfect score. However, I have two reasons why.
First, this is not a book written for adults. It's a children's book; meant to help kids see Jesus as a parental figure who cares about them. While I'll be the first to say that the mere message of "Jesus loves you" is insufficient to replace the -actual- gospels, I'm not offended by it in something that was intended for children, since you have to start somewhere.
Secondly, the book is not stilted, and is, in fact, very entertaining. The clever rhymes and beautiful pictures will keep the attention of young kids, and make the rather simple reading level more tolerable for adults as well. Perhaps even enjoyable.
I, for example, enjoyed the fact that the book differentiates between "little" good things (like candles, palm branches, vestments, etc...,) and "big" good things (our Lord's real presence in the Eucharist.) Learning to prioritize between different kinds of goods is an important skill for anyone, and learning to recognize and appreciate the greatest gifts given to us by God is also important. In short, it squeezes in some key training in the faith, which is more than I expect from a book on this age level.
It's faithful, it's enjoyable, and it's a stepping stone to bigger things. I have nothing to complain about here.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I recently gave the movie "the greatest miracle" one face down from a perfect score in enjoyability because of its tendency to feminize the heavenly hosts and treat Jesus and Mary like people without distinct personalities. The same, in a sense, is done by this book, yet I feel no reservations about giving it a perfect score. However, I have two reasons why.
First, this is not a book written for adults. It's a children's book; meant to help kids see Jesus as a parental figure who cares about them. While I'll be the first to say that the mere message of "Jesus loves you" is insufficient to replace the -actual- gospels, I'm not offended by it in something that was intended for children, since you have to start somewhere.
Secondly, the book is not stilted, and is, in fact, very entertaining. The clever rhymes and beautiful pictures will keep the attention of young kids, and make the rather simple reading level more tolerable for adults as well. Perhaps even enjoyable.
I, for example, enjoyed the fact that the book differentiates between "little" good things (like candles, palm branches, vestments, etc...,) and "big" good things (our Lord's real presence in the Eucharist.) Learning to prioritize between different kinds of goods is an important skill for anyone, and learning to recognize and appreciate the greatest gifts given to us by God is also important. In short, it squeezes in some key training in the faith, which is more than I expect from a book on this age level.
It's faithful, it's enjoyable, and it's a stepping stone to bigger things. I have nothing to complain about here.
The Greatest Miracle
Rated PG
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
This movie is a short, animated feature; just a little over an hour long, with 3D computer graphics to represent characters and such, and it's entirely faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Just wanted to say that right up front, since this alone accounts for the perfect score on the Catholic-ometer.
The premise is that a few people; a struggling single mother, a busdriver worried about his sick son, and an elderly, faithful Catholic woman are all drawn to a church by the same young man. Once there, they begin to have visions; seeing what really goes on in that church. They see demons, angels, saints, suffering souls and what part Jesus and the Blessed Mother play in it all.
Some scenes (particularly the ones with the Blessed Mother and Jesus) are genuinely touching, and I almost wept at a few of them, which should give you some idea of just how well this film does its job.
Nevertheless, I don't give this film a perfect score in enjoyability, and there are a few reasons why.
The first is the animation. While the character models are beautiful and extremely well-designed, the actual animation is rather lackluster when compared to the sort of thing produced by real movie studies. I mention this first, because I found it just a bit distracting throughout the entire movie.
Secondly, the movie is -immensely- stilted, and its aesthetic leaves much to be desired. I know that may be an odd thing to say, right after remarking on how it made me almost weep, but it's always a problem whenever angels are made to look overtly-feminine, Jesus and Mary -act- like plaster statues, and the relationship with Jesus is painted as largely a matter of reflection, contemplation and emoting. The film does attempt to establish that more is involved than mere feelings, but it also seems to imply that those who have "the wrong motives" for doing good are second-class citizens in God's eyes; an old notion, which I've attempted to refute in previous reviews. It doesn't say this overtly, however, or I'd put more effort into refuting it here.
The reason the church has lost members in recent years is that it has lost men, and like it or not; whether it makes us happy or not, most of the men who might be drawn to religion are not like the father in this film; they're not at the brink of despair over some personal tragedy and willing to listen to anybody who might give them hope.
The way you draw men into a proper understanding of the faith is by -avoiding- the feminine elements. Explain that angels are mighty warriors (they're called the heavenly hosts for a reason, you know,) that the Catholic life is a spiritual war, that the sacraments are a form of power, and that our relationship with Jesus need not be some touchy-feely-hippie garbage; that it can be like the relationship between a soldier and the general who commands him. You draw men in by not trying to calm them down. They just get bored by that.
I still enjoyed this film a lot, of course. It's got a few other hiccups, apart from these two, but nothing significant. As far as whether it's something to show to kids, there's no real cursing, bloodshed, sex or anything. Characters shout at each other early on, and death is dealt with. Also, the demons might be a little scary for young viewers, but my main worry with younger viewers would be the same as my worry with grown men; they might just get bored with all the angelic monologues and the slow pace of the movie, and decide not to watch anymore.
I would recommend this movie, mainly, to those who are already serious about their faith and want to see it illustrated in a film. It's short enough that you can watch it some afternoon after work, and you might get something out of it. I know I did. I just wouldn't use it as a convert wedge. Strengthen your faith with this gem, and make the converts yourself instead.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
This movie is a short, animated feature; just a little over an hour long, with 3D computer graphics to represent characters and such, and it's entirely faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Just wanted to say that right up front, since this alone accounts for the perfect score on the Catholic-ometer.
The premise is that a few people; a struggling single mother, a busdriver worried about his sick son, and an elderly, faithful Catholic woman are all drawn to a church by the same young man. Once there, they begin to have visions; seeing what really goes on in that church. They see demons, angels, saints, suffering souls and what part Jesus and the Blessed Mother play in it all.
Some scenes (particularly the ones with the Blessed Mother and Jesus) are genuinely touching, and I almost wept at a few of them, which should give you some idea of just how well this film does its job.
Nevertheless, I don't give this film a perfect score in enjoyability, and there are a few reasons why.
The first is the animation. While the character models are beautiful and extremely well-designed, the actual animation is rather lackluster when compared to the sort of thing produced by real movie studies. I mention this first, because I found it just a bit distracting throughout the entire movie.
Secondly, the movie is -immensely- stilted, and its aesthetic leaves much to be desired. I know that may be an odd thing to say, right after remarking on how it made me almost weep, but it's always a problem whenever angels are made to look overtly-feminine, Jesus and Mary -act- like plaster statues, and the relationship with Jesus is painted as largely a matter of reflection, contemplation and emoting. The film does attempt to establish that more is involved than mere feelings, but it also seems to imply that those who have "the wrong motives" for doing good are second-class citizens in God's eyes; an old notion, which I've attempted to refute in previous reviews. It doesn't say this overtly, however, or I'd put more effort into refuting it here.
The reason the church has lost members in recent years is that it has lost men, and like it or not; whether it makes us happy or not, most of the men who might be drawn to religion are not like the father in this film; they're not at the brink of despair over some personal tragedy and willing to listen to anybody who might give them hope.
The way you draw men into a proper understanding of the faith is by -avoiding- the feminine elements. Explain that angels are mighty warriors (they're called the heavenly hosts for a reason, you know,) that the Catholic life is a spiritual war, that the sacraments are a form of power, and that our relationship with Jesus need not be some touchy-feely-hippie garbage; that it can be like the relationship between a soldier and the general who commands him. You draw men in by not trying to calm them down. They just get bored by that.
I still enjoyed this film a lot, of course. It's got a few other hiccups, apart from these two, but nothing significant. As far as whether it's something to show to kids, there's no real cursing, bloodshed, sex or anything. Characters shout at each other early on, and death is dealt with. Also, the demons might be a little scary for young viewers, but my main worry with younger viewers would be the same as my worry with grown men; they might just get bored with all the angelic monologues and the slow pace of the movie, and decide not to watch anymore.
I would recommend this movie, mainly, to those who are already serious about their faith and want to see it illustrated in a film. It's short enough that you can watch it some afternoon after work, and you might get something out of it. I know I did. I just wouldn't use it as a convert wedge. Strengthen your faith with this gem, and make the converts yourself instead.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
What's Wrong With the World
By G. K. Chesterton
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I've enjoyed every book by Chesterton that I've ever read. He's a very clever, insightful and humorous writer, but this one was especially good. In it, Chesterton addresses many big problems in the world of his time (and even more so, the world of today,) and comes to some very jarring conclusions about them.
As with every writer worth reading, Chesterton utterly challenges the false assumptions that the world bases its whole system of belief on; even assumptions about things like public education, voting and soap, and also like with every writer worth reading, he backs up his claims with logical analogies and evidence, which help to support his views. I wouldn't dream of robbing you of the delight of reading these things for yourself, of course, so here's your chance to stop reading this review. I'll spend the rest of it talking about some of the points he made.
Chesterton's first several points in this book are to point out that man has gone wrong in quite a number of ways, and made quite a number of false assumptions to prevent himself from going right again. People make the mistake of thinking that the societies of the past failed because they were flawed in some way that we aren't. People make choices on the basis of what they -dislike,- rather than on the basis of what's better. People make the mistake of regarding the past with fear and distrust in general, and of assuming that only the future can offer them anything worth having; that there was nothing about the past that's worth restoring. All of these assumptions are purely destructive, since they block a person off to an avenue of good ideas and good solutions, which would otherwise be available to them.
People make the mistake of prizing optimism over success; a happy outlook over a happy life. They make the mistake of allowing whole groups of people, making opposite mistakes, to guide them in one false direction or another, never once suspecting that both might be wrong in certain ways, or if they suspect, unable to really do anything about it. The early parts of the book are a real eye-opener.
Chesterton then challenges imperialism and the way wicked public changes are spread; through claiming that it's necessary. Never once, he says, are these evil changes enacted because people really want them enacted. They're enacted because people are convinced that they're needed, whether they're wanted or not. However, Chesterton's point is pretty clear; they are, in truth, not needed at all; certainly not among everyday people who are just trying to live their lives and put food on the table. Every major radical political agenda of a left-leaning slant in the modern world can be put neatly in this category.
Next, Chesterton turns his guns on feminism. This is probably the most controversial part of the book, which may explain why I loved it so much. Basically, he points out that men are not women, nor are women men, and that they have different natural inclinations and ways of thinking, which makes men better at some things, and women at others. Like all the best people who address this issue, he doesn't get distracted by the feminist lines about "equality." Indeed, women are equal to men, in their innate worth, their human rights, etc, but this does not make them the same as men, nor should it need to. Men and women can compliment one another within society, each having a different role, and neither needing to infringe on the other. It's not necessary, or helpful, to just mix everyone into the same pot, like we do in modern society.
Perhaps the most controversial part of this section is in Chesterton's dismissal of women's suffrage, which he defends, not by repudiating women, as feminists might have one believe, but by repudiating votes. In a sense, I agree with him. Voting is a grave responsibility with many dark aspects to it, and there are distinct drawbacks to it, as a system of government. For one thing, in a monarchy, or some other such society, even if an evil tyrant takes over, you don't need to look suspiciously at most of your fellow citizens. It probably wasn't their fault. Not so in a democracy. In a democracy, when an evil tyrant takes over (and it always happens eventually, as it now has to America,) you have to wake up the next morning and go to work, knowing full well that over half of your fellow citizens are either voting in ignorance, are negligent of their duties, or are evil themselves.
Then too, if an evil tyrant wants to seize power over a democracy, he can't just march his army in and take command. He has to go through the long, slow process of gradually corrupting the hearts and/or dulling the minds of over half its citizens, so that they become evil or ignorant enough to accept him. When all is said and done, I think that more souls are lost under an evil democracy than under and evil dictatorship. By no means am I saying that democracies are inferior to monarchies, or anything like that. What I am saying is that voting is not the clean and guiltless process we often make it out to be. These aren't the points that Chesterton brings up against voting, but it's what I got to thinking about as a result of this book.
The next group of big issues dealt with in this book are education; specifically, public education of children, and how it rises from another false assumption; that because rich people allow their children to be taught by someone else, so should everyone else. In short, that not only -can- parents escape from the task of teaching their children, but they -should.- He explains why this is utter nonsense; what great benefits the child gains in learning from their own parents, and others who share their way of life, instead of suffering under the "merciful gifts" of the richer classes.
I should point out that with the state of public schools in America today (basically a form of child abuse,) these objections are even -more- poignant and -more- important. In fact, really, all the objections in this book stand out much clearer and more correct than ever, but none more so than his last big observation on the world.
The problem is that man is viewing his society/social constructs as immutable, and his neighbor as flexible, when it should be the other way around. People are trying to shape man to fit into a vision of society, rather than forming their vision of society around man. This is what's really wrong with the world, according to G. K. Chesterton.
I couldn't agree with him more.
Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
I've enjoyed every book by Chesterton that I've ever read. He's a very clever, insightful and humorous writer, but this one was especially good. In it, Chesterton addresses many big problems in the world of his time (and even more so, the world of today,) and comes to some very jarring conclusions about them.
As with every writer worth reading, Chesterton utterly challenges the false assumptions that the world bases its whole system of belief on; even assumptions about things like public education, voting and soap, and also like with every writer worth reading, he backs up his claims with logical analogies and evidence, which help to support his views. I wouldn't dream of robbing you of the delight of reading these things for yourself, of course, so here's your chance to stop reading this review. I'll spend the rest of it talking about some of the points he made.
Chesterton's first several points in this book are to point out that man has gone wrong in quite a number of ways, and made quite a number of false assumptions to prevent himself from going right again. People make the mistake of thinking that the societies of the past failed because they were flawed in some way that we aren't. People make choices on the basis of what they -dislike,- rather than on the basis of what's better. People make the mistake of regarding the past with fear and distrust in general, and of assuming that only the future can offer them anything worth having; that there was nothing about the past that's worth restoring. All of these assumptions are purely destructive, since they block a person off to an avenue of good ideas and good solutions, which would otherwise be available to them.
People make the mistake of prizing optimism over success; a happy outlook over a happy life. They make the mistake of allowing whole groups of people, making opposite mistakes, to guide them in one false direction or another, never once suspecting that both might be wrong in certain ways, or if they suspect, unable to really do anything about it. The early parts of the book are a real eye-opener.
Chesterton then challenges imperialism and the way wicked public changes are spread; through claiming that it's necessary. Never once, he says, are these evil changes enacted because people really want them enacted. They're enacted because people are convinced that they're needed, whether they're wanted or not. However, Chesterton's point is pretty clear; they are, in truth, not needed at all; certainly not among everyday people who are just trying to live their lives and put food on the table. Every major radical political agenda of a left-leaning slant in the modern world can be put neatly in this category.
Next, Chesterton turns his guns on feminism. This is probably the most controversial part of the book, which may explain why I loved it so much. Basically, he points out that men are not women, nor are women men, and that they have different natural inclinations and ways of thinking, which makes men better at some things, and women at others. Like all the best people who address this issue, he doesn't get distracted by the feminist lines about "equality." Indeed, women are equal to men, in their innate worth, their human rights, etc, but this does not make them the same as men, nor should it need to. Men and women can compliment one another within society, each having a different role, and neither needing to infringe on the other. It's not necessary, or helpful, to just mix everyone into the same pot, like we do in modern society.
Perhaps the most controversial part of this section is in Chesterton's dismissal of women's suffrage, which he defends, not by repudiating women, as feminists might have one believe, but by repudiating votes. In a sense, I agree with him. Voting is a grave responsibility with many dark aspects to it, and there are distinct drawbacks to it, as a system of government. For one thing, in a monarchy, or some other such society, even if an evil tyrant takes over, you don't need to look suspiciously at most of your fellow citizens. It probably wasn't their fault. Not so in a democracy. In a democracy, when an evil tyrant takes over (and it always happens eventually, as it now has to America,) you have to wake up the next morning and go to work, knowing full well that over half of your fellow citizens are either voting in ignorance, are negligent of their duties, or are evil themselves.
Then too, if an evil tyrant wants to seize power over a democracy, he can't just march his army in and take command. He has to go through the long, slow process of gradually corrupting the hearts and/or dulling the minds of over half its citizens, so that they become evil or ignorant enough to accept him. When all is said and done, I think that more souls are lost under an evil democracy than under and evil dictatorship. By no means am I saying that democracies are inferior to monarchies, or anything like that. What I am saying is that voting is not the clean and guiltless process we often make it out to be. These aren't the points that Chesterton brings up against voting, but it's what I got to thinking about as a result of this book.
The next group of big issues dealt with in this book are education; specifically, public education of children, and how it rises from another false assumption; that because rich people allow their children to be taught by someone else, so should everyone else. In short, that not only -can- parents escape from the task of teaching their children, but they -should.- He explains why this is utter nonsense; what great benefits the child gains in learning from their own parents, and others who share their way of life, instead of suffering under the "merciful gifts" of the richer classes.
I should point out that with the state of public schools in America today (basically a form of child abuse,) these objections are even -more- poignant and -more- important. In fact, really, all the objections in this book stand out much clearer and more correct than ever, but none more so than his last big observation on the world.
The problem is that man is viewing his society/social constructs as immutable, and his neighbor as flexible, when it should be the other way around. People are trying to shape man to fit into a vision of society, rather than forming their vision of society around man. This is what's really wrong with the world, according to G. K. Chesterton.
I couldn't agree with him more.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Screwtape Letters
By C. S. Lewis
Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
Apart from the chronicles of Narnia, if I could have only one of the books of C. S. Lewis, the Screwtape Letters would be it. It's vibrant, exciting, colorful and very precise and clever in the points it makes.
The book centers around two demons; the young, inexperienced Wormwood, and the elder demon named Screwtape, who writes him letters of advice and encouragement. These letters are much needed, as poor Wormwood keeps screwing up, and letting his human do things like become a Christian, make some new friends when his old ones become a bad influence, take a relaxing walk to clear his head so that he can think straight, etc... Why, there's a very real danger that Wormwood might even let this particular human make it to Heaven, if he's not careful.
Every perspective in this book is cleverly inverted. Screwtape praises the ability to sew confusion in the mind of a human being, the use of tiny slogans instead of rational explanations, to convince people of a point, the use of the word "democracy" to discourage people from excelling and so forth. His advice to his young demon friend reveals, very cleverly, the things that we must avoid, and the kinds of traps we can easily fall into if we're not careful, as well as precisely how to stay on the right track for our lives, and all in a sort of backwards, underworld style of writing which, to be honest, I found very humorous; even largely tongue-in-cheek.
Of course, we know that demons don't really come in "older" and "younger," nor do they learn anything, and they don't really -devour- humans or one another. Their motives are pure spite. Still, those slight deviations from actual theology make the story more fun and easier to tell, and perhaps even better.
The mini-sequel, also included in most editions, entitled "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" is just as good as the original book, though it does, of course, have a slightly different premise. The particularly excellent quotes and points made would simply take too long to outline. If you haven't read this book yet, check it out. Even if you've made the mistake of not being a Christian, you'll probably still get a kick out of Screwtape and his bungling "nephew."
Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 5 of 5
Apart from the chronicles of Narnia, if I could have only one of the books of C. S. Lewis, the Screwtape Letters would be it. It's vibrant, exciting, colorful and very precise and clever in the points it makes.
The book centers around two demons; the young, inexperienced Wormwood, and the elder demon named Screwtape, who writes him letters of advice and encouragement. These letters are much needed, as poor Wormwood keeps screwing up, and letting his human do things like become a Christian, make some new friends when his old ones become a bad influence, take a relaxing walk to clear his head so that he can think straight, etc... Why, there's a very real danger that Wormwood might even let this particular human make it to Heaven, if he's not careful.
Every perspective in this book is cleverly inverted. Screwtape praises the ability to sew confusion in the mind of a human being, the use of tiny slogans instead of rational explanations, to convince people of a point, the use of the word "democracy" to discourage people from excelling and so forth. His advice to his young demon friend reveals, very cleverly, the things that we must avoid, and the kinds of traps we can easily fall into if we're not careful, as well as precisely how to stay on the right track for our lives, and all in a sort of backwards, underworld style of writing which, to be honest, I found very humorous; even largely tongue-in-cheek.
Of course, we know that demons don't really come in "older" and "younger," nor do they learn anything, and they don't really -devour- humans or one another. Their motives are pure spite. Still, those slight deviations from actual theology make the story more fun and easier to tell, and perhaps even better.
The mini-sequel, also included in most editions, entitled "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" is just as good as the original book, though it does, of course, have a slightly different premise. The particularly excellent quotes and points made would simply take too long to outline. If you haven't read this book yet, check it out. Even if you've made the mistake of not being a Christian, you'll probably still get a kick out of Screwtape and his bungling "nephew."
Friday, September 7, 2012
The Great Divorce
By C. S. Lewis
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Let me begin this review by making a couple of things about this book absolutely clear. First, it's not a book about marraige or divorce. Secondly, it depicts a vision of the relationship between Heaven, Hell and Purgatory which is utterly incorrect. However, Lewis admits to this second point at both the beginning and end of the book. It's a work of fiction; nothing else, so with that said, we can move on to the book itself.
In this novel, a soul travels from Hell to Heaven, with a few of his fellow souls, and bit by bit, each discovers just why they don't belong there. The slavedriving, condescending boss doesn't even want to be around so many miscreants, the apostate is repulsed by the idea of knowing one idea to be true and all the others false, the thief finds he can't steal anything from Heaven, because he has nowhere to put it, etc... It's a clever little device for a story, although as the book goes on, one is forced to wonder; just what did the narrator do to end up in Hell, and will he be able to overcome it and remain in Heaven?
This, by the way, is the element of fiction that the book makes ample use of; that technically, souls in Hell are given a chance to visit Heaven, change their ways, and remain there. This is ludicrous, of course; the very idea of Hell implies that people have already chosen not to change their ways, and made their final decision already. There are no further choices of this sort to be made after Death. Still, as a basis for a story, it's an amusing little plot device. It's just a shame that we never really learn anything of substance about the narrator. I feel Lewis could have fleshed him out and made him an interesting character, rather than a mere cypher for viewing the other occurrances. Still, it was fun to read, for what it was.
Now, on to specific goods and bads about the story. I have no major complaints to speak of for the entire first half of the book. As I said, the premise is absurd, but apart from that, it holds up very well.
However, in Chapter 9, Paragraph 88, one of the saints says that people who drink the waters of Heaven see their works as though they belonged to someone else. Thank you, but no. I already know what it's like to watch other people do great things, and I know it's not sufficient. If I wanted that, I wouldn't need to go to Heaven for it.
This is one of those things that I don't think Lewis ever really understood; the notion that being with God implies the -exhaltation- of man, not his suppression. In retrospect, many of my problems with his books stem from this basic issue.
Ch9Par100-103, for example, in which the ghost of a painter "realizes" that people receive no recognition in Heaven at all, except from God. Needless to say, I don't agree. God grants to the saints all things which are good, and no things which are evil. Recognition from peers is a good thing. Therefore...
In Ch11Par14, it's implied that people must never treat God as a means to other good things. While I admit readily enough that God is the greatest possible goodness, and should not be undervalued, we sorry humans sometimes need to motivate ourselves, which is made even harder for those of us who have difficulty being motivated by something as abstract as true and complete goodness, or as humanoid as the son of God. In this kind of situation, it would be prudent to seek some other good, so that one might be motivated to make the right decisions and arrive in Heaven to receive it. Now, this is not relevant to the situation of the woman the saint was talking to in this paragraph, but I feel it should be pointed out.
As the book continues beyond these segments, however, it begins to make a number of very good and interesting points. First is Ch11Par113, where it essentially says that every aspect of man can be raised to glory, so long as it's killed first. I personally believe this to be true, since otherwise, the glorified man wouldn't really be a complete "man" at all.
Next is Ch13Par43, which makes the point that those who make others miserable until they choose to be happy on their own terms will be very unhappy in the end. Still, I think this point needs to be studied just a little more closely. On the one hand, this point really only applies to those who make other people miserable by their own choices, but on the other hand, it could be misread to imply that there's something wrong with being hard to please, which I don't think is true by itself.
Then, in Ch13Par47, we learn that the action of pity must be elevated, and the passion of pity must be executed. Mostly correct, I think, and an important distinction to make. When we become weak and immoral, and let ourselves become victims as a result of feeling pity towards others, we're not helping anyone, and there does need to be some way to correct this.
Finally, I feel I should mention that this book includes George Macdonald as one of its characters. He shows up as a saint in Heaven, which by this point, I'm inclined to think he is. Macdonald's biggest problem, aside from not being Catholic, was his universalism, and unless he intended to apostatize, which seems unlikely, I don't think his mistakes were enough to merit eternal punishment. I disagree with him about some things, but I don't see any reason for supposing that he failed to make it to Heaven. It did bother me a bit to see him treated like the old mentor there, though.
Ultimately, the book is about the people we observe; the study of the kinds of people who failed to make it to Heaven and why. Of course, during this study, we examine many types of choices and psychological conditions, and find out what's wrong with them and what kinds of problems they cause for the soul of whoever has them. This is the real meat of the story, and I really enjoyed it, in spite of all the things I was hoping to see.
On the whole, I found this book to be very enjoyable and very fun, although again, it needs to be treated as the fiction it is. Take it in that context, and you should be just fine.
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Let me begin this review by making a couple of things about this book absolutely clear. First, it's not a book about marraige or divorce. Secondly, it depicts a vision of the relationship between Heaven, Hell and Purgatory which is utterly incorrect. However, Lewis admits to this second point at both the beginning and end of the book. It's a work of fiction; nothing else, so with that said, we can move on to the book itself.
In this novel, a soul travels from Hell to Heaven, with a few of his fellow souls, and bit by bit, each discovers just why they don't belong there. The slavedriving, condescending boss doesn't even want to be around so many miscreants, the apostate is repulsed by the idea of knowing one idea to be true and all the others false, the thief finds he can't steal anything from Heaven, because he has nowhere to put it, etc... It's a clever little device for a story, although as the book goes on, one is forced to wonder; just what did the narrator do to end up in Hell, and will he be able to overcome it and remain in Heaven?
This, by the way, is the element of fiction that the book makes ample use of; that technically, souls in Hell are given a chance to visit Heaven, change their ways, and remain there. This is ludicrous, of course; the very idea of Hell implies that people have already chosen not to change their ways, and made their final decision already. There are no further choices of this sort to be made after Death. Still, as a basis for a story, it's an amusing little plot device. It's just a shame that we never really learn anything of substance about the narrator. I feel Lewis could have fleshed him out and made him an interesting character, rather than a mere cypher for viewing the other occurrances. Still, it was fun to read, for what it was.
Now, on to specific goods and bads about the story. I have no major complaints to speak of for the entire first half of the book. As I said, the premise is absurd, but apart from that, it holds up very well.
However, in Chapter 9, Paragraph 88, one of the saints says that people who drink the waters of Heaven see their works as though they belonged to someone else. Thank you, but no. I already know what it's like to watch other people do great things, and I know it's not sufficient. If I wanted that, I wouldn't need to go to Heaven for it.
This is one of those things that I don't think Lewis ever really understood; the notion that being with God implies the -exhaltation- of man, not his suppression. In retrospect, many of my problems with his books stem from this basic issue.
Ch9Par100-103, for example, in which the ghost of a painter "realizes" that people receive no recognition in Heaven at all, except from God. Needless to say, I don't agree. God grants to the saints all things which are good, and no things which are evil. Recognition from peers is a good thing. Therefore...
In Ch11Par14, it's implied that people must never treat God as a means to other good things. While I admit readily enough that God is the greatest possible goodness, and should not be undervalued, we sorry humans sometimes need to motivate ourselves, which is made even harder for those of us who have difficulty being motivated by something as abstract as true and complete goodness, or as humanoid as the son of God. In this kind of situation, it would be prudent to seek some other good, so that one might be motivated to make the right decisions and arrive in Heaven to receive it. Now, this is not relevant to the situation of the woman the saint was talking to in this paragraph, but I feel it should be pointed out.
As the book continues beyond these segments, however, it begins to make a number of very good and interesting points. First is Ch11Par113, where it essentially says that every aspect of man can be raised to glory, so long as it's killed first. I personally believe this to be true, since otherwise, the glorified man wouldn't really be a complete "man" at all.
Next is Ch13Par43, which makes the point that those who make others miserable until they choose to be happy on their own terms will be very unhappy in the end. Still, I think this point needs to be studied just a little more closely. On the one hand, this point really only applies to those who make other people miserable by their own choices, but on the other hand, it could be misread to imply that there's something wrong with being hard to please, which I don't think is true by itself.
Then, in Ch13Par47, we learn that the action of pity must be elevated, and the passion of pity must be executed. Mostly correct, I think, and an important distinction to make. When we become weak and immoral, and let ourselves become victims as a result of feeling pity towards others, we're not helping anyone, and there does need to be some way to correct this.
Finally, I feel I should mention that this book includes George Macdonald as one of its characters. He shows up as a saint in Heaven, which by this point, I'm inclined to think he is. Macdonald's biggest problem, aside from not being Catholic, was his universalism, and unless he intended to apostatize, which seems unlikely, I don't think his mistakes were enough to merit eternal punishment. I disagree with him about some things, but I don't see any reason for supposing that he failed to make it to Heaven. It did bother me a bit to see him treated like the old mentor there, though.
Ultimately, the book is about the people we observe; the study of the kinds of people who failed to make it to Heaven and why. Of course, during this study, we examine many types of choices and psychological conditions, and find out what's wrong with them and what kinds of problems they cause for the soul of whoever has them. This is the real meat of the story, and I really enjoyed it, in spite of all the things I was hoping to see.
On the whole, I found this book to be very enjoyable and very fun, although again, it needs to be treated as the fiction it is. Take it in that context, and you should be just fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)