Red Cardigan explains …

July 4, 2013 § 31 Comments

that when a trashy unrepentant entitled heterosexual single mom asserts through the courts that she has a right to be employed at a Catholic school, the correct course of action is to give her a job.  But if a trashy unrepentant entitled lesbian single mom asserts through the courts that she has a right to be employed at a Catholic school, that is “sickening”.

That thing you see poking out of the tent is the tip of the camel’s tail; that sound you hear from “conservatives” is the faint dawning of awareness that it doesn’t work to stand athwart the steep part of the slippery slope shouting “stop!”

(Read more under the “Pro Life Stockholm Syndrome” tag).

§ 31 Responses to Red Cardigan explains …

  • Purple Tortoise says:

    What I find to be odd is how Red Cardigan contrasts intentionally becoming pregnant via IVF with “accidentally” becoming pregnant out of wedlock. How can out-of-wedlock pregnancy happen accidentally?

  • Scott W. says:

    Good catch Purple. To be fair, I won’t single out Red because modern society has done a bang up job of making our language habits about sex contraceptive as default norm.

  • Dalrock says:

    One could make a strong case that of the two the lesbian is less harmful to the children as a role model. The reason being that harlots are already seen with great sympathy by so many in our culture (including Christians), and only a very small percentage of the girls in the school will be seriously tempted to follow in the lesbian’s footsteps. I don’t have the stats handy, but lesbians can’t account for a meaningful percent of the 40% of children currently born out of wedlock.

    But the point remains either way. Once it was decided that observing Catholic doctrine is “mean” and “unfair”, the battle for RCC schools to hold the line on morality was already lost.

  • Proph says:

    What’s especially strange about it is that, if the Catholic Church firing mothers for reasons of morality/scandal is off the table, then what does it matter that lesbian mom technically lied on her employment contract?

  • sunshinemary says:

    Neither woman is a good choice for a teacher, but if I had to choose between the two, I guess I’d take the straight woman over the lesbian because of the increased risk of child molestation (lesbians are much less likely to molest children than gay men are, but both are more likely to do so than a straight woman is).

  • sunshinemary says:

    D’oh! I just actually read the linked articled by Mrs. Red Cardigan now. Oh, the lolz…from her article:

    Compare that to the woman who got pregnant out of wedlock by accident, who tried to make the best of a bad situation by choosing life for her twins, and who went to her school hoping to work out an office job or other behind-the-scenes situation so as not to confuse her students by her pregnancy, and it’s easy to see the difference here. The most obvious difference is that you can’t get pregnant via IVF by accident.

    Now, I like this “getting pregnant by accident” thing because it eliminates all that inconvenient moral agency stuff that really cramps my style. I think I’m going to go write a post on it right this minute.

  • Her response to GKC’s comment on her post was difficult for me to follow, but I think she means, “It takes two to fornicate but it’s the man’s fault and you should be ashamed for implying that she has moral agency unlike that disgusting lesbian.”

  • Mike T says:

    To paraphrase Chris Rock in response to Redcardigan:

    “You’ll hear a liberal Catholic woman say ‘I ain’t evah aborted one of my kids’!” What do you want, a cookie? You ain’t supposed to kill your kids you low expectation-havin m-f-er!

  • sunshinemary says:

    Well, after giving her a gentle teasing in my post for conveniently overlooking the fact that a girl actually has to engage in fornication in order to become pregnant, I decided to try to have an actual conversation with Mrs. RC to see if I could explain the problem with her argument.

    It didn’t go well.

  • Zippy says:

    sunshinemary:
    Among other things, she continues to tell lies about people who disagree with her, to wit:

    Because every single one of you seems to think its just FINE for the teacher’s male counterpart in sin to get to keep everything: job, reputation, income, health insurance–while she and her children are cut off from her livelihood and their health care.

    It of course isn’t — and it has been repeatedly reiterated that it isn’t — fine for a cad to be a Catholic schoolteacher either. It was right for e.g. Matt Prill to be fired. (Prill, to his credit, and entirely unlike the two entitled women under discussion, did not drag the school through the courts because he felt entitled to keep a job despite violating his employment agreement).

    Beyond that, if the androsphere numbers are right[*], and 70% or so of the women are sleeping around with 20% or so of the men, then it actually is the sexual choices of women that are actually destroying civilization. It actually doesn’t take two to tango, statistically speaking. Reform one cad and his harem transfers to other willing cads, resulting in virtually no social change. Reform one slut on the other hand and we have fewer broken homes and/or abortions. So from the standpoint of what is objectively best for the common good, the great majority of our social energy should be focused on reforming the wrongdoing of the women.

    Dalrock is right that most “conservatives” are like Gilligan when it comes to this particular issue.

    [*] Whether the androsphere numbers are right or not is a question of objective fact, of course, so it can’t be dismissed in horror under some sort of ‘hatefact’ rubric.

  • sunshinemary says:

    I was hoping she might engage in a conversation with me, Zippy, so that I could point out exactly what you just said; reforming one slut is more effective than reforming one cad in terms of reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and thus reducing the number of abortions, something we can all agree that we’d like to see happen.

    Sadly, she did not address my points at all and instead expressed horror that I might discipline my children when they misbehave. It’s very telling that she objects to disciplining one’s children because of the log/mote argument. Apparently even parents are not allowed to judge their daughters’ behavior.

    I will give her bonus points, though, for using the word strumpet, an under-utilized word, in my opinion.

  • Mike T says:

    Red Cardigan is also avoiding the distinct possibility that women such as this one are engaging with bad boys, ie men who couldn’t care less what a Good Catholic Girl like Red Cardigan would think of him. In fact, it might actually delight his heathen little heart that she disapproves of him and wants to shame him. It would hardly be the first time that a “good girl” from a church decided to chase a man who embodied many of the things her church teaches are objectively evil just because he gives her tingles.

    Furthermore, Red Cardigan made some posts about the Boy Scouts saying effectively that applying Catholic moral expectations to them would be ineffective or even possibly improper since they are a secular employer. Since it stands to reason that the man’s employer is secular due to him not bearing any consequences from the violation of a morals clause, her own argument for not immediately abandoning the BSA condemns her own case here.

    But since this case involves a man and a woman, not just men and boys we must take the woman’s side even if it means doing levels of depravity to our principles only visualized in B-grade Hentai. Principles be damned, white knights assemble!

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Dalrock is right that most “conservatives” are like Gilligan when it comes to this particular issue.
    Thanks Zippy! It is uncanny how well her argument of “it takes two” and “double standard” tracks the Gilligan post. If only her comment were satire.

    Beyond that, if the androsphere numbers are right[*], and 70% or so of the women are sleeping around with 20% or so of the men, then it actually is the sexual choices of women that are actually destroying civilization. It actually doesn’t take two to tango, statistically speaking. Reform one cad and his harem transfers to other willing cads, resulting in virtually no social change. Reform one slut on the other hand and we have fewer broken homes and/or abortions. So from the standpoint of what is objectively best for the common good, the great majority of our social energy should be focused on reforming the wrongdoing of the women.

    (emphasis mine) Even if statistically speaking there were 100 cads for every 100 sluts, the problem with focusing on cads would still remain. The problem is biological, and inherent to the nature of male and female. This is only exacerbated by hypergamy and (even worse) the tendency of women to be sexually attracted to men with dark triad traits, especially when they are most fertile. This means the men we need to shame, the bad boys strumpets are most attracted to, are the least susceptible to social pressure. Their flaunting of social norms is in fact what makes them so sexually attractive to fertile strumpets. Focusing on shaming men whom women find attractive because they can’t be shamed would be insane enough, but we also have thousands of years of proof that focusing social pressure on women keeps out of wedlock birth rates low.

    There is another problem with Red Cardigan’s response to GKC, and that is the misdirection around the entirely unbiblical idea of the celibate boyfriend:

    Oh, sure, it’s easy to say, “Don’t want to get pregnant? Then keep your legs closed, slut!” as many men (alas, even Catholic ones) seem to do. But I think that our Lord, knowing full well the ugly details of the unchastity of males as well as females (yes, even the grave unchastity of many Catholic men who are perfectly happy to condemn women for getting pregnant out of wedlock on the one hand and demand that their girlfriends “put out” on the other) would call this out for the ugly hypocrisy that it is.

    She is framing the moral problem as modern women struggling to find men who will agree to be chaste boyfriends. But chaste boyfriend/girlfriend status isn’t moral either. She is in effect assuming the woman only wanted to misuse romantic love outside of marriage, but the man wanted to misuse romantic love and sex outsider of marriage. In order to continue in her sin, we are to assume he insisted that she add another sin. This isn’t inconceivable, but it overlooks the fact that she would then be agreeing to commit one sin in order to not have to give another sin up. This isn’t a moral defense. The biblical answer to sexual desire is laid out as clearly as one could ask in 1 Cor 7. The real moral issue is that one or both of them didn’t want marriage. If it was the woman who didn’t want marriage, then the fact that she couldn’t find a willing chaste boyfriend is outside of the moral problem. If it was the man who didn’t want marriage, why did she continue carrying on with him instead of seeking out a man who was interested in marrying her?

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    The real moral issue is that one or both of them didn’t want marriage. If it was the woman who didn’t want marriage, then the fact that she couldn’t find a willing chaste boyfriend is outside of the moral problem. If it was the man who didn’t want marriage, why did she continue carrying on with him instead of seeking out a man who was interested in marrying her?

    Well said.

  • Mike T says:

    A comment I posted on W4 about holding women accountable for selling their body parts/eggs seems appropriate for Red Cardigan here…

    I do agree that this involves using women as objects and allowing them to sell parts of their bodies.

    Language like this serves to tacitly absolve those women of whatever moral culpability they should face if they choose this sort of action. The idea that someone else is “using these women” implies these women are being manipulated even coerced into something against their better judgement when most such women will be fully cooperating in this of their own free will motivated by greed.

    The left is already quite guilty of this in other areas such as their habit of saying that whenever a woman suffers consequences for acting on her personal autonomy, it’s blaming the victim. To them, and indeed many conservatives, women are like an ethical schrodinger’s cat who is simultaneously a full rights-endowed being and moral child. Whichever one she may be at a given time is unknowable until her action reveals her current state. When she acts politically, she’s a full adult entitled to equal rights with men. When she does something we don’t approve or which she finds lamentable, we reduce her to the status of a child–incapable of being told to bear the consequences.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    [W]omen are like an ethical schrodinger’s cat who is simultaneously a full rights-endowed being and moral child. Whichever one she may be at a given time is unknowable until her action reveals her current state. When she acts politically, she’s a full adult entitled to equal rights with men. When she does something we don’t approve or which she finds lamentable, we reduce her to the status of a child–incapable of being told to bear the consequences.

    I don’t have anything to add to that; I just wanted to see it in print a second time.

  • c matt says:

    RC tries to make the point that the fornicating woman was equivalent to someone who was contrite, repentant, etc. And I can understand that, but does a contrite, repentant woman turn around and “sue” for forgiveness, as if it is owed to her? Kind of belies the whole repentance thing.

    As for her harping on “where’s the guy”, well, where is he? Shouldn’t mom-to-be be suing him for paternity and support, rather than the school?

  • Zippy says:

    Yeah, RC has consistently painted Kathleen Quinlan as contrite. But contrite people accept the consequences of their actions; they don’t take people to court to demand “mercy”.

  • Mike T says:

    She wouldn’t have taken them to court if she didn’t feel a right was violated. If she felt her rights were being violated, that means she feels that party in the wrong here is the school and not her. Ergo, it stands to reason she is only contrite about not using sufficient birth control.

    Speaking as a Protestant on this one, I find it hilarious that Red Cardigan goes nuts over the “grave sin of contraception” which I am to assume includes condoms which have no abortifacient aspects to them, but goes nuts on people calling her out for fornicating, getting pregnant and then scandalizing a Christian school with a resource-draining lawsuit. But thank God and the Blessed Mother she didn’t use… condoms because that would have been the one straw that would have broken the camels back in all of this.

  • Mike T says:

    In Red Cardigan’s world, it’s ok to judge a nuclear family that is using non-abortifacient family planning while still being faithful to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, but heaven forbid we condemn a woman who got pregnant from unprotected fornication and then proceeded to attack her Christian employer for calling her out on it.

  • Mike T says:

    A few days ago, I was reading some stuff online about contraception and sex in Catholic doctrine. While I don’t claim to be well-versed in the nuance and may be missing something here, it occurred to me that Catholic doctrine contains a potentially massive double standard that favors women here.

    As I understand Catholic doctrine on these points, a man cannot licitly have any orgasm that does not result in ejaculation into his wife’s vagina. This is from various verses about “spilling seed on the ground” and philosophical points about contraceptive sex. However, I saw nothing in there implying that a woman cannot have as many orgasms as she wants within the limits of doctrinal points about lust and such.

    So it stands to reason that a wife could theoretically expect a husband to provide her with more sexual satisfaction that she gives him.

  • Zippy says:

    Nothing so elaborate is required in order to unearth a double standard. Chastity manifestly requires more of men by nature, because men have the greater sex drive.

    I don’t see this as some great travesty though, because I think equality is tommyrot and therefore it simply isn’t the case that every double standard is a problem.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    N.b. I do think you probably are missing part of the doctrinal landscape. In the first place, sexual stimulation to orgasm outside the context of a completed act of intercourse is a moral wrong, so it is unchaste – a form of masturbation really – for the wife to orgasm without her husband doing so also, even with his assistance. Whatever else may be the case, deliberate orgasms excluding the deposit of semen where it naturally goes, in the context of the overall human encounter, are never morally licit. People who teach otherwise are on, shall we say, doctrinally shaky ground.

    The specific example isn’t important though, since your overall contention that there is a sexual double standard is absolutely true. Double standards are everywhere, if by double standard we mean every instance of one person (or class of persons) bearing a harder moral burden than another in a particular area of life.

    But so what? Life isn’t fair. People need to deal with that basic aspect of reality rather than getting their knickers all wound up into foot-stomping outrage. Wives have to obey their husbands. Husbands have to control their greater sex drive. Nature sometimes exposes a fornicating woman through pregnancy, but it never exposes a male fornicator with a pregnancy.

    To any who find this outrageous, all I can say is: Deal with it. Grow the Hell up.

    Equality always sounds all nice and peaceful and friendly and kumbaya at first. But as it works itself out politically there always seem to be dismembered corpses by the millions getting shoveled into dumpsters and ovens.

  • Mike T says:

    My conjecture is that there is a double standard, and I don’t necessarily even have a problem with it. I found it amusing that this seemed like a double standard that a woman like Red Cardigan would roundly defend even as she condemns a man for not “being held accountable” for his baby mama’s violation of her morals clause.

  • Proph says:

    “Deal with it. Grow the Hell up.”

    The sentiment is sound here, but I think you’re understating the issue by accusing egalitarians of mere immaturity. We already have a word for the inability or refusal to deal with reality on its own terms, and that word is “psychosis.”

  • Scott W. says:

    We already have a word for the inability or refusal to deal with reality on its own terms, and that word is “psychosis.”

    Perhaps Crimestop?

  • Micha Elyi says:

    Sadly, she did not address my points at all and instead expressed horror that I might discipline my children when they misbehave.
    sunshinemary

    Yeah, I noticed that too.

    Perhaps Red Cardigan lacks a proper fear of the millstone (Matthew 18:6).

  • Micha Elyi says:

    What I find to be odd is how Red Cardigan contrasts intentionally becoming pregnant via IVF with “accidentally” becoming pregnant out of wedlock.
    Purple Tortoise

    I believe Red Cardigan (RC) is trying argue there is greater guilt in breaking ones employment contract by an long-premeditated and prepared-for act than by a one-time failure of impulse control. Such a point of view is not “odd” at all, it is the basis for considering pre-meditated murder different from and a much more serious offense than manslaughter.

    However, RC failed to persuade me that the immediate temporal consequences of either out-of-wedlock pregnancy at a Catholic school must differ, other than after removing Ms. Oopsie from her position to refer her to The Nurturing Network charity founded by Mrs. Mary Cunningham Agee.

  • […] Commenter JMSmith makes an observation I have often made myself: […]

  • […] Respecting women means making sure that we treat them like children who are not responsible for their own actions.  Unless they are gay. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Red Cardigan explains … at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: