So, Who Am I Boycotting This Week?

 

In the spirit of lively debate, and because what started out as a comment that went on way too long, this is a rebuttal to @cliffordbrown ‘s post, in which he calls for a boycott of Walmart over their announced policy of discontinuing sales of pistol ammunition. I personally require no convincing to not shop at Wally World. I dislike the stores for a wide variety of reasons too long to enumerate here, and I’m not about to start shopping there except in case of immediate need.

So far so good, but let’s be honest, Wally World ain’t losing any money on my account so far because they ain’t getting it in the first place. And I imagine I’m hardly alone in my lack of effect on Sam Walton’s legacy — unless you live in one of the more rural towns where Walmart is the only general-goods game around, you’re not going to be shopping there unless you either need to, unless you like Walmart. But here is where I significantly part ways with Clifford: In his words:

Any one who values the Constitution, let alone gun ownership and the right to effective self-defense, will immediately punish Walmart, shifting all purchases to: [list of alternatives]…The rule is simple: no shopping, and no allowing people who shop there to bring stuff to your dwelling, your office, your picnic, in Walmart bags or with Walmart house brands.

African-Americans won with this technique in the 1955-1956 Montgomery bus boycott. They won by ruthlessly self-policing. It is disempowering nonsense to assert that boycotts are ineffective. They simply take real grassroots will, with a bit of organizing direction…

Effectively, immediately, intensively socially shame anyone who slacks off and goes to Walmart.

So it’s just one more store on the checklist we all now are demanded to carry in our heads of “places my politics tells me to boycott.” Seems every other week now someone is asking for a boycott of something. Skip this place because they gave to Planned Parenthood, skip this other place because they donated to Hillary, skip this third place because they banned open carry (nevermind that I never open-carried), boycott movies from this other studio because their CEO spouted nonsense after the Oscars, best to avoid this brand of socks because they used whale oil to make their elastic, and don’t walk on floor tiles from this company because they fired my great uncle Charlie in 1936 for decking a foreman, don’t go here, and don’t go there…

After a while, the grievances weigh one down and they’re competing for much-coveted memory space with “places we should feel obligated to patronize because it makes leftist heads explode.” So while I’m avoiding getting coffee from Starbucks, I’m obligated to dine at Chick-Fil-A, even though I think their chicken is overrated and I’m never able to get my food in under 20 minutes due to the crowds of other chicken obligates.

I’m supposed to shop at this bakery because the owner is a Christian, even though my waistline is screaming “put down the cake and walk away slowly (because walking quickly is unlikely).” And I simply must buy something from this other place because I’d be “supporting a good cause” (really, do I need another useless tchotchke?), and I have to buy this razor over there since they sponsor a show I like, and then buy this car because my grandmother said they hired great uncle Charlie after that unfortunate incident with the foreman…

So I have to say I object on principle to yet another boycott. We make fun of the lefties for hating the Christian ethos of Chick-Fil-A and mock their hypocrisy when they buy the chicken anyway. Maybe we should focus on something else.

All that said, there are some specific issues with the nature of the proposed boycott that are problematic in their own right. I’m going to address the second quoted point first to clear the decks. I do not see the parallel with a city-owned and city-operated bus system that an urban population depended on for their livelihoods. The bus boycott worked because it was concentrated and impossible to miss, and because the black populace of Montgomery had to make real, tangible, and visible sacrifices in the boycott. A boycott of Wally World is diffuse because there are, for most people, many, many other places to shop, and diffuse because Walmart has such a broad customer base around the country. And it’s not like it would be a particularly pointed sacrifice for most people except in more rural locations.

Further, Montgomery discriminated virulently against blacks on the basis skin color. This discrimination was impossible to ignore. The blacks who depended on those buses to get to work or to do their shopping were treated terribly from the moment they got on the bus. Does a Walmart greeter even notice me when I enter or exit their store? Am I, as a gun owner, wearing some tag that tells Walmart to treat me badly? Will I face hostility, derision, or violence while shopping, just for being a gun owner? (I know I’ll face a slow checkout regardless, but that’s another matter.) There is no parallel here, and it does us no good at all to compare our comparatively petty grievance to the African Americans living in Montgomery in the 1950s — to do so is an insult to them.

But what of the social shaming advocated for those who will not boycott? Given how increasingly militant we are divided as Americans, where our politicians and pundits demand that we boycott this or that, or support that other thing because “it makes leftists’ heads explode,” is the added antagonism worth it — especially over an issue this small? I’m an employer – should I really tell my employees not to bring Sam’s Choice cola to a company picnic, or tell the lady who brings in donuts some mornings to get them someplace else? Should I make my politics their issue too, where they have to consider their own political loyalties a factor in whether they feel welcome and valued as human beings at work?

I have enough political arguments too with our extended family, to the point where I will hush people at family gatherings if they cannot talk politics civilly. I even had a relative storm out of a Christmas party because I told them to can it in front of the kids. In the years since, however, the family has come to respect my rule and abide by it. It’s not that we cannot talk politics, but when talk starts to turn to swapping barbs and trying to “win” by shame or browbeating, it ends or I ask people to leave. To do as suggested would be to tell those relatives to forget everything I have tried to enforce about respect and to make my politics central. They know my politics already. They know what I stand for and why. But I will not make agreement with me a condition for whether they can come into my home. My home is welcome to all, and that I will not compromise.

But there is one more matter:

The only boycott exception, where legal, is to get in the CEO’s face with open carry. Carry politely, legally, openly. Then, expecting confrontation by employees, have a partner obviously employing a cell phone or GoPro camera to capture everything as you tell them they will either respect the American Constitution and your God-given right to self-defense or you will never spend another dime in Walmart and only show up to mock them for “just following orders” when the store closes.

How have these sorts of things gone for us before? Not well. Remember when Starbucks allowed open carry? How did that work out? So long as people did not make it an issue, it was not an issue. The hoplophobes, of course, found out and started to protest and demand Starbucks explicitly ban open carrying. What happened next was that more gun owners started open-carrying at Starbucks. If they had stuck just to discretely holstered pistols I imagine the issue would have gone away eventually. Instead (and you can image-search this easily) people showing up toting long-guns into suburban coffee shops. That was entirely unnecessary, and was little better than LARPing for the spectacle of it all — there was then, and is now no credible case for toting around an AR-15 slung on your back when you go to get a latté. Pretending otherwise for the sake of “muh rights!” is risible.

Open-carrying into Walmarts now, with a friend in tow and a gotcha camera at the ready, is also spectacle, and it will only serve to further shred credibility and perception. Walmart has every legal right as a business to conduct itself in this manner, and I have every right to not shop there. To say otherwise is to likewise say that a cake shop has to bake a gay wedding cake. We all rightly recognize that the lawsuits against Masterpiece Cakes have been borne of malice and spectacle, is that a game we should stoop too as well?

Published in Guns
Ricochet editors have scheduled this post to be promoted to the Main Feed at 1:30PM (PT) on September 9th, 2019.

There are 213 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Those aren’t mutually exclusive options. The latter might even be a big part of the former.

    My personal problem is figuring out the God-honoring way of going about it.

    I was at a funeral at my home church this past weekend where a young woman I knew while she was in seminary is now the associate rector. It was strange seeing her in the place I grew up while I live so far away. I was thinking if I were just a smidge more liberal, I could be a priest in this church…

    First time that worm has ever weedled it’s way into my mind.

    How do I affect change in my church if I believe in the Biblical limits of female leadership in the church?

    • #151
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Stina (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Those aren’t mutually exclusive options. The latter might even be a big part of the former.

    My personal problem is figuring out the God-honoring way of going about it.

    I was at a funeral at my home church this past weekend where a young woman I knew while she was in seminary is now the associate rector. It was strange seeing her in the place I grew up while I live so far away. I was thinking if I were just a smidge more liberal, I could be a priest in this church…

    First time that worm has ever weedled it’s way into my mind.

    How do I affect change in my church if I believe in the Biblical limits of female leadership in the church?

    Same way women have always affected change. There’s the line from Big Fat Greek Wedding.

    Then there’s my hot wife’s job–helping me. I’m pretty sure I’d be way less useful in virtually everything without her.

    What else?  Oh, goodness: There’s the long-term work.  My kids will do my wife’s work leading the church in the future.  I’m doing my father’s work in the church now.  But I took in C. S. Lewis with my mother’s milk even as I took in Francis Schaeffer through my father’s lectures, and I’m doing my mother‘s work now in the church as well.

    Plus there’s writing.  Go all Dorothy Sayers on your church, I say!

    And then there’s the best idea: Ignore everything I say, and ask G-d for better ideas.

    • #152
  3. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    The Left is not monolithic, and it has some deep fault lines and massive inconsistencies within itself.

    I think this is a really important point. Leftism is a pastiche of many different “sects” that don’t always agree with each other and are doomed to eventually fight each other because of their overarching lust for ultimate control. It happened during the Spanish Civil War when several of the leftist factions fighting against the Spanish Government began fighting actual bloody battles between themselves. George Orwell, who had signed up with one of these factions, had a death warrant put out on him by another faction. I think that is where he started to form his more conservative ideas.

    I am seeing some of the beginnings of this clash between our leftist groups in America. Gays and feminists are starting to rebel against the trans-gender people who are claiming higher civil-rights status than good old fashioned homosexuals, and allowing men to compete against women in athletic events. A big one brewing is the eventual clash between leftists who defend Muslims, and Muslims themselves, who absolutely despise anything the left stands for.

     

    You also have the LGBTQ people versus African-Americans, as with the recent Dave Chappelle kerfuffle, and the one that cost Kevin Hart his Oscar-hosting duties earlier this year. There is a real battle brewing on whether sexual preference>race or if race remains above it in the victimhood pecking order (and that’s before you get into whether or not Muslim>sexual preference>race. As long as they can point their hatred outward, toward Trump and people on the right in general, they can paper over the divisions, but they are getting close to the point where the battles over which is the Alpha group and gets to tell everyone else what to do and how to live their lives isn’t going to be able to be hidden).

    • #153
  4. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    A big one brewing is the eventual clash between leftists who defend Muslims, and Muslims themselves, who absolutely despise anything the left stands for.

    Indications so far are that that clash will not occur until the red-green alliance has the rest of us under their boots. See Minnesota politics, see the groups who signed on against the wedding-video producers.

    • #154
  5. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Whence the claim that there is no clarity to be found in these documents? From your own observations? From the fact that people disagree about them? Or something else?

    Don’t take my word for it – those couple thousand separate Christian sects pretty clearly demonstrate that there isn’t monolithic understanding of the documents.  Before arguing with me about more fundamental issues, a lot of people need convincing of the less fundamental, apparently.

    Even other nominal Christians aren’t in complete agreement about these things.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Those aren’t mutually exclusive options. The latter might even be a big part of the former.

    The latter necessarily precedes the former, and the former is irrelevant without the latter.

    • #155
  6. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Stina (View Comment):
    How do I affect change in my church if I believe in the Biblical limits of female leadership in the church?

    Has the thought ever occurred to you that perhaps this teaching is in error?

    Are women inferior in the Kingdom of God?

    • #156
  7. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    How do I affect change in my church if I believe in the Biblical limits of female leadership in the church?

    Has the thought ever occurred to you that perhaps this teaching is in error?

    Are women inferior in the Kingdom of God?

    I am not a Christian, but I would say that women, in general, are inferior  in leadership  roles as compared to men. (Uh Oh!)

    • #157
  8. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    How do I affect change in my church if I believe in the Biblical limits of female leadership in the church?

    Has the thought ever occurred to you that perhaps this teaching is in error?

    Are women inferior in the Kingdom of God?

    I am not a Christian, but I would say that women, in general, are inferior in leadership roles as compared to men. (Uh Oh!)

    When I was an engineer, I worked for both men and women. I preferred the male bosses. Muchly

    And it’s not just about “leadership” in the church. It’s about understanding and respecting the male/female differences and the vocations given to both sexes by their natures.  Again, we’re fighting over distinctions.

    Women are neither inferior nor superior (tell the feminists). We’re different from men.

    • #158
  9. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    A big one brewing is the eventual clash between leftists who defend Muslims, and Muslims themselves, who absolutely despise anything the left stands for.

    Indications so far are that that clash will not occur until the red-green alliance has the rest of us under their boots. See Minnesota politics, see the groups who signed on against the wedding-video producers.

    They can get away with that for now because there’s no area of the country where radical Islamists have any real control, as opposed to Detroit and Minneapolis, where voters elected radical Muslim activists to Congress. Elect some to high local office in a progressive leaning city and have them start governing according to their beliefs, and watch the shirt hit the fan with the secular progressives in that area (the only corollary on the national level at the moment are progressive Jews, who are fine with alliances with people like Omar and Tlaib because they’re still confident their side holds the power overall within the Democratic Party.  But let BDS or Zionism=Racism suddenly become the party’s official positions because their actions have made too many people within their coalition not care or be sympathetic to Anti-Semitism, and you’re going to see a lot of dumb-struck people wondering what’s happening to their political party).

    • #159
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    A big one brewing is the eventual clash between leftists who defend Muslims, and Muslims themselves, who absolutely despise anything the left stands for.

    Indications so far are that that clash will not occur until the red-green alliance has the rest of us under their boots. See Minnesota politics, see the groups who signed on against the wedding-video producers.

    That’s the way it usually goes. Once the United States had the Native peoples subdued (and the Brits were gone for good) then they had their big clash to decide which faction came out on top. Similar things have happened in many other places. Once there is no need to unite against a common foe, either an oppressor or an oppressee) then the real infighting begins.  

    • #160
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    A big one brewing is the eventual clash between leftists who defend Muslims, and Muslims themselves, who absolutely despise anything the left stands for.

    Indications so far are that that clash will not occur until the red-green alliance has the rest of us under their boots. See Minnesota politics, see the groups who signed on against the wedding-video producers.

    That’s the way it usually goes. Once the United States had the Native peoples subdued (and the Brits were gone for good) then they had their big clash to decide which faction came out on top. Similar things have happened in many other places. Once there is no need to unite against a common foe, either an oppressor or an oppressee) then the real infighting begins.

    Since I started with the analogy of the clash between European-Americans and Native Americans, I should also add that the Native peoples in one of the newly settled regions (Minnesota) saw that their conquerors were fighting among themselves, they thought this might be their chance. The result was the Dakota-U.S. war of 1862. One of the northern generals who hadn’t been successful in the Civil War was assigned to go out and deal with it.  

    • #161
  12. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    When I was an engineer, I worked for both men and women. I preferred the male bosses. Muchly

    And it’s not just about “leadership” in the church. It’s about understanding and respecting the male/female differences and the vocations given to both sexes by their natures. Again, we’re fighting over distinctions.

    Women are neither inferior nor superior (tell the feminists). We’re different from men.

    Different in this case meaning “incapable of being placed in a leadership position.”

    How is this different in kind from “inherently inferior”? I can’t really detect any difference. You can try to put a lot of words around this to soften it, but it literally means that across the entire distribution of possible women there isn’t even one who displays the requisite characteristics to inhabit a leadership role – and more interestingly, not even one with better characteristics than the worst man currently inhabiting such a slot.

    I’m sorry.  I. Don’t. Buy. It.

    Not for nothing: the worst man currently inhabiting such a position is a ghastly pederast, a drunk or some other form of lout.  The notion that the best woman available isn’t infinitely preferable to the worst available man is… Well, let’s just say it’s weird.

    Also: the all male hierarchy has done much good for the Church, it seems. What are you guys upset about again? Oh yes: a Church that is disintegrating. You should definitely keep on doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

    • #162
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Whence the claim that there is no clarity to be found in these documents? From your own observations? From the fact that people disagree about them? Or something else?

    Don’t take my word for it – those couple thousand separate Christian sects pretty clearly demonstrate that there isn’t monolithic understanding of the documents.

    Indeed.

    But you didn’t answer my question. You only repeated the point that people don’t agree about the texts.

    Before arguing with me about more fundamental issues, a lot of people need convincing of the less fundamental, apparently.

    Even other nominal Christians aren’t in complete agreement about these things.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Those aren’t mutually exclusive options. The latter might even be a big part of the former.

    The latter necessarily precedes the former, and the former is irrelevant without the latter.

    Oh, good. We agree, or close enough.

    • #163
  14. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    Also: the all male hierarchy has done much good for the Church, it seems. What are you guys upset about again? Oh yes: a Church that is disintegrating. You should definitely keep on doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

    I don’t think you’ll like my response to the problem with the male hierarchy of the Church these days. It’s not because they’re men, it’s because they reject the teachings of the Church both in their private lives (homosexuality) and their public ones. Women are every bit as capable of such bad behavior, it might just come in a different form.

    The Church is growing where its praxis is in accord with its theology. It’s here, in the West, where moral innovation (the normalization of homosexuality) and heterodoxy tries to bury the wisdom of the ages where the Church is dis-integrating. And I’m okay with the Church becoming smaller and more faithful, as Benedict prophesied. 

    Women are very capable of being leaders. They’re definitely called to be leaders in the home — in the formation of their children. It’s the most important work anyone does.

    • #164
  15. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    But you didn’t answer my question. You only repeated the point that people don’t agree about the texts.

    Yes on all counts.

    But you already knew that – why ask questions to which you already know the answer?

    • #165
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    The notion that the best woman available isn’t infinitely preferable to the worst available man is…

    . . . is not actually WC’s position, I’m guessing. The biblical Deborah, Carly F. vs Bernie Sanders, and so on come to mind.

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    Also: the all male hierarchy has done much good for the Church, it seems. What are you guys upset about again? Oh yes: a Church that is disintegrating

    The disintegrating churches tend to be the ones that abandoned male headship along with the authority of Scripture quite some time ago.

    • #166
  17. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    But you didn’t answer my question. You only repeated the point that people don’t agree about the texts.

    Yes on all counts.

    But you already knew that – why ask questions to which you already know the answer?

    No, I don’t. I can’t even be sure what “all counts” you mean.

    • #167
  18. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    When I was an engineer, I worked for both men and women. I preferred the male bosses. Muchly.

    And it’s not just about “leadership” in the church. It’s about understanding and respecting the male/female differences and the vocations given to both sexes by their natures. Again, we’re fighting over distinctions.

    Women are neither inferior nor superior (tell the feminists). We’re different from men.

    Different in this case meaning “incapable of being placed in a leadership position.”

    How is this different in kind from “inherently inferior”? I can’t really detect any difference. You can try to put a lot of words around this to soften it, but it literally means that across the entire distribution of possible women there isn’t even one who displays the requisite characteristics to inhabit a leadership role – and more interestingly, not even one with better characteristics than the worst man currently inhabiting such a slot.

    I’m sorry. I. Don’t. Buy. It.

    Not for nothing: the worst man currently inhabiting such a position is a ghastly pederast, a drunk or some other form of lout. The notion that the best woman available isn’t infinitely preferable to the worst available man is… Well, let’s just say it’s weird.

    Also: the all male hierarchy has done much good for the Church, it seems. What are you guys upset about again? Oh yes: a Church that is disintegrating. You should definitely keep on doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

    You are going way over the top  on this.  Neither Western Chauvinist nor I said that every single man is  preferable to a woman in leadership positions.  I said “generally” and Western Chauvinist said that she “preferred” male bosses.  This  is not a mutually exclusive area of competence.  There is considerable overlap in leadership  skills between men and women.

    • #168
  19. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    The notion that the best woman available isn’t infinitely preferable to the worst available man is…

    . . . is not actually WC’s position, I’m guessing. The biblical Deborah, Carly F. vs Bernie Sanders, and so on come to mind.

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And it’s not just about “leadership” in the church. It’s about understanding and respecting the male/female differences and the vocations given to both sexes by their natures. Again, we’re fighting over distinctions.

    Women are neither inferior nor superior (tell the feminists). We’re different from men.

    That’s her position.  That women are so different from men by their nature that they’re incapable of leading the church.

    I’m much more meritocratic than sexist, I guess.  But see – I’m also OK with women in combat positions in the military as well SO LONG AS they are subject to the EXACT same requirements as men in similar roles.  The Israelis grasp this and make accommodation for the obvious normal differences between men and women.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Whence the claim that there is no clarity to be found in these documents? From your own observations? From the fact that people disagree about them? Or something else?

    1. By inspection, the documents are incoherent and obviously false.  But so are the Koran, the Book of Mormon,  the Epic of Gilgamesh and Dianetics.  What of it?
    2. Mine and others. 5 billion others, in fact. The point is not to make an argumentum ad populum but to point out that it is not obvious to people who weren’t inculcated in this that the claims made in such texts are beyond reproach, and are of a similar character to claims made by other faiths.  Acceptance of them is more likely a function of geography/birth than a function of intellectual pursuit or free will.  The current company is obviously excepted – but the possibility still exists that you are simply a smart person who is good at defending weird conclusions reached for initially wrong reasons.  Smart people are good at creating elaborate constructs to defend their positions.
    3. That and other reasons we’ve discussed at length.  You think these things are persuasive because you’ve internalized their claims as normative and make specious comparisons to other historical events which are not like those reported in the Bible.
    4. Isn’t the above enough?  Why am I not convinced? Am I just a mule, or is it a function of the fact that I’m more of a Thomas (you’d better believe my hands are in those wounds)?
    • #169
  20. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    You are going way over the top on this. Neither Western Chauvinist nor I said that every single man is preferable to a woman in leadership positions. I said “generally” and Western Chauvinist said that she “preferred” male bosses. This is not a mutually exclusive area of competence. There is considerable overlap in leadership skills between men and women.

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    You can try to put a lot of words around this to soften it, but it literally means that across the entire distribution of possible women there isn’t even one who displays the requisite characteristics to inhabit a leadership role.

    WC is clearly defending the position that women can’t lead the church by dint of their nature.  This is divinely mandated.  Part of the natural order.

    It doesn’t matter that there are women who are more capable than the worst man – they can’t do it because reasons.

    • #170
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    That’s her position. That women are so different from men by their nature that they’re incapable of leading the church.

    No, I’m fine with women being “leaders” in the Church. The Church has recognized many women “doctors” who influence the faithful — but, no priestesses. Therefore, all-male hierarchy. There are many good reasons for this, but I think we’ve covered this ground before.

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    The Israelis grasp this and make accommodation for the obvious normal differences between men and women.

    Uh, then they’re not the EXACT same standards, are they? They’ve modified the standards to accommodate (the relative weakness of) women. 

    Women simply cannot do everything men do. And vice versa.

    • #171
  22. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Uh, then they’re not the EXACT same standards, are they? They’ve modified the standards to accommodate (the relative weakness of) women. 

    Women simply cannot do everything men do. And vice versa.

    My understanding is that for front-line combat the standards are the same and some women still are capable.  Obviously there are fewer because of the mean differences between men and women’s strength/body mass index etc.

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    No, I’m fine with women being “leaders” in the Church. The Church has recognized many women “doctors” who influence the faithful — but, no priestesses. Therefore, all-male hierarchy. There are many good reasons for this, but I think we’ve covered this ground before.

    Leaders get to make decisions and get to enjoy similar power as other people in the hierarchy.

    Unless women are also capable of becoming Pope they’re second class citizens.

    You wouldn’t say the same thing about any other position, like “Senator,” “President,” or “School Principal” and would rightly be outraged at the lack of opportunity.

    • #172
  23. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Uh, then they’re not the EXACT same standards, are they? They’ve modified the standards to accommodate (the relative weakness of) women.

    Women simply cannot do everything men do. And vice versa.

    My understanding is that for front-line combat the standards are the same and some women still are capable. Obviously there are fewer because of the mean differences between men and women’s strength/body mass index etc.

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    No, I’m fine with women being “leaders” in the Church. The Church has recognized many women “doctors” who influence the faithful — but, no priestesses. Therefore, all-male hierarchy. There are many good reasons for this, but I think we’ve covered this ground before.

    Leaders get to make decisions and get to enjoy similar power as other people in the hierarchy.

    Unless women are also capable of becoming Pope they’re second class citizens.

    You wouldn’t say the same thing about any other position, like “Senator,” “President,” or “School Principal” and would rightly be outraged at the lack of opportunity.

    You’re engaged in leveling. Being a priest/bishop/pope is just like being a political leader.

    No, it isn’t. I prefer to retain important distinctions and long-held standards. Don’t tear down that fence unless you understand why it was put up.

    • #173
  24. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    You’re engaged in leveling. Being a priest/bishop/pope is just like being a political leader.

    No, it isn’t. I prefer to retain important distinctions and long-held standards. Don’t tear down that fence unless you understand why it was put up.

    The Chesterton’s fence argument doesn’t really hold up here in my opinion because we know why it was put up, and yes, it was for unjust reasons and should be torn down and the ground salted where it once stood.

    But, much like Charles CW Cooke I am a leveler so I will own that.

    • #174
  25. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    My understanding is that for front-line combat the standards are the same and some women still are capable.

    All Israelis are on the front-line, aren’t they?

    • #175
  26. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    My understanding is that for front-line combat the standards are the same and some women still are capable.

    All Israelis are on the front-line, aren’t they?

    That, I never said.

    Clearly, the makeup of the various forces are going to display different characteristics.  However: a blanket ban for service in a particular role isn’t on the table.

    • #176
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    The Chesterton’s fence argument doesn’t really hold up here in my opinion because we know why it was put up, and yes, it was for unjust reasons and should be torn down and the ground salted where it once stood.

    You’re wrong. But, I’m not going to expend anymore effort on explaining thousands of years of doctrine. Watch the Peter Kreeft video, or don’t. Just know that you’re not arguing from a position of authority on the matter.

    • #177
  28. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    You’re wrong. But, I’m not going to expend anymore effort on explaining thousands of years of doctrine. Watch the Peter Kreeft video, or don’t. Just know that you’re not arguing from a position of authority on the matter.

    Much like other situations I find that Catholic intellectuals insist that you must read these 12,000 pages of argument before you’re qualified to comment on it… or in this case, an hour long Peter Kreeft sermon.

    The preliminary thought I have is to point out that the initial conflation of the idea that “only men can be daddies” and “only men can be priests” is a category error.  Biology isn’t a job.  Being in the Priesthood is a job and being a Dad isn’t.  Being a Dad is a biological fact, not a job.  People can make for bad fathers, but it doesn’t make them not fathers if they have children.

    Interesting that Kreeft appeals to objective truth (objective reality) – in light of certain discussions lately.

    Then he proceeds to appeal to authority in order to justify the whole thing.  So, either you accept the authority or you don’t find this persuasive. “The devil made me do it!” except in this case, it was God.  Sorry, I find that weirdly ironic.

    • #178
  29. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    Being in the Priesthood is a job and being a Dad isn’t.

    Said like a good materialist. 

    You hate the Church, I get it. I don’t care to engage on the subject further because I don’t think you’re persuadable and we’ve strayed pretty far afield from the OP. 

    Peace.

    • #179
  30. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Member
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Western Chauvinist

    Shawn Buell (Majestyk) (View Comment):
    Being in the Priesthood is a job and being a Dad isn’t.

    Said like a good materialist. 

    You hate the Church, I get it. I don’t care to engage on the subject further because I don’t think you’re persuadable and we’ve strayed pretty far afield from the OP. 

    All I will say about this is that I am my stepdaughter’s Dad even though I’m not her father.  It’s a task which I willingly and happily took up.  So in this case, the fact of her actual parentage doesn’t matter as much as the willingness of the parties involved to serve that role.  It’s better that it is that way rather than me denying such responsibility.  But that’s my materialism talking. ;)

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.