Posted on 03/07/2012 7:26:26 AM PST by cleghornboy
Heather Mallick, columnist for The Star, is angry. What has her so upset? The fact that a young man who attends a Catholic school should have the audacity to exhort young women to be modest in their attire.
Matt Gurney, writing for the National Post, said that the 17 year old Catholic student, "clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside." This is a message any sane person would stand behind. And it is, in fact, a message which Sister Mary of the Immaculate Heart (Lucia dos Santos of the Fatima apparition), had for the young women of today: "When I think of the United States I think about this: one of the things which Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress. There does not seem to be much modesty in the life of the women of your country. But modesty would be a good sacrifice to offer Our Lady, and it would please her if the Catholics in your country would make a league for modesty in dress."
But Mallick believes she knows better. So enraged is she that a young man should embrace Catholic teaching on modesty and the dignity of women that she lashes out with that vitriolic rage which is so characteristic of today's intellectually impoverished radical feminist. She writes, "There’s a kind of man universally unpopular with women. He is Controlling Man. Just say 'he’s kind of controlling' to your women friends and they hiss and draw back as if they’d been sprayed with lemon juice. From whence do controlling men come? I always wondered and now I know. Paul Gomille, a 17-year-old student at Archbishop Denis O’Connor Catholic High School in Ajax, wrote a message to the girls and women at his school, a declaration that he claimed 'strikes at the very core of humanity itself, in an attempt to make a revelation of truth apparent to all of you, with awe inspiring certainty.' Really, Martin Luther could take lessons from this guy. Who taught him this nonsense?...Females from age 2 to 92 speak as one: We do not care to hear male opinions on our clothes unless it’s 'You look fabulous in that. Radiant. Wow.' When we ask you if the sweater works with the scarf, the word we want to hear is 'yes.' And then, frankly, we’ll change the sweater. If he’s a Controlling Man who says it’s too tight or uses the phrases 'no wife of mine will . . . ' we detach...Gomille may be 17 but he sounds 102 and we hear from males like him all our lives. They’re correctors, judges, buzzkills...There’s a worrying prescriptiveness in Gomille’s unasked-for definition of how his fellow students should dress. We women are half the world. In the workplace men and women stand side-by-side and are gradually learning how to accommodate each other’s differences. Keep your advice to yourself, preacher. Trust me, girls like that in a boy." (See article here).
For radical feminists like Mallick, Catholic teaching has no place in society and the only legitimate function of men today is to keep their mouths shut unless they are willing to totally agree with the women who surround them. This is a necessary corrective since all of the world's evils originate in "male supremacy" and a "patriarchal culture."
The reality is, of course, something far different In the words of Robert Bork, "..feminism is by far the strongest and most imperialistic [on today's college campuses], its influence suffusing the most traditional academic departments and university administrations. Feminists are revising and radicalizing textbooks and curricula in the humanities and the social sciences. They have a major say in faculty recruitment. Feminists increasingly control what is taught in high schools and elementary schools as well. Speech codes and 'sensitivity' training severely limit what can be said on campus. The feminists have not only done harm to the intellectual function of universities and schools, they have made campuses extremely unpleasant, especially for white males, who are subject to harassment and demands that they toe the feminist cultural and political line." (Slouching Toward Gomorrah).
For Mallick, Paul Gomille is attempting to be a "controlling man" because he had the sheer unmitigated gall to....offer his opinion. And for that, this young man deserves to be silenced. And suspended from his school. For the role of men today is one of subservience - one of complete subjugation to women. This is what women like, this is what they demand, from men today according to the radical feminist creed. Which is why she writes, "Keep your advice to yourself, preacher. Trust me, girls like that in a boy."
Not all girls Heather. Only angry and bitter feminists like you who are frozen in 1960s nostalgia. We've all heard your act. And it didn't play well. It's time for you to move on.
In any case, we've heard enough from the Controlling Woman - the radical feminist
“When we ask you. Does this scarf work with the veins bulging out of my cranium like a Talosian in the Star Trek pilot? Do you think incorrect thoughts?”
This is the same witch who wrote a 2008 blog hit piece about Sarah Palin, saying she looked like a porn star and calling her supporters white trash.
In 2008, after Sarah Palin was selected as the U.S. Republican party’s Vice-Presidential candidate, Mallick, among other things, labelled Palin as “white trash” and an “Alaskan hillbilly” and likened her to a “toned-down ... porn actress” in a column for the CBC.
An investigation by the CBC ombudsman found that “many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact”, and that her aspersions on the sexual inadequacy of Republican men “would easily be seen as, at best, puerile” if “applied to any other group”. The publisher of CBC news, John Cruickshank, apologized for publishing Mallick’s column, which he called “viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mallick
This is considered ‘civility’ by the lunatic left...
Heather Mallick says:
“I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America’s name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.”
“Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a ___kin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?”
Hmmmmmm.....why would a feminist be so worried about women dressing modestly?.....oohhhhhh......a smokescreen......look over here......women are under attack!.....don’t look at the economy!!!!....look at how well liberalism is working and you see why this kind of stuff is written.
This girl needs to Listen to Jane Brennan’s witness from Lighthouse Catholic Media:
Feminism Misunderstood: One Woman’s Journey to Peace - Jane Brennan.
http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.com/store/refer/3905
I need to rub my eyes with sandpaper to make that picture go away.
Well, patriarchy in any form offends the sensibilities of liberals. Girls have the right to go on their slut walks and get free birth control and don’t want men to tell them what to do.
Society itself may be breaking down. Maybe in the next generation, the entire culture will be like inner-city “ghetto” culture. But according to liberal ideology, nothing can be done against some of these trends, because then you interfere with a woman’s body and all that. Not to mention we have to instill self-esteem and give equal rights to sexually confused trans-whatever peoples and all that.
Carried to the next level, nobody has a right to tell anyone what to do about anything.
The veneer of civilization is thin, and getting thinner.
She has a wedding or engagement ring? Is she married?
Of course, in this day and age, we have to ask, is she married to a man?
Wow
all I can think of is
“we’re fierce, we’re feminists, and we’re in your face”
Gotta agree with that one.
That reminds me - Tim Taylor once told his eldest son about the famous Femininist tract by Bette Friedan - “The Feminine Mistake”!
CA....
Mallick is married to Stephen Petherbridge, a senior British/Canadian journalist.
steve.petherbridge@thebaystreetbull.com
Good Lord!
What on earth is that disgusting thing??
Is that the winning entrant in the “Helen Thomas Beauty Contest”?
SHHH!! If you complain too much, it’ll get added to the Helen Thomas picture gallery, and we’ll never be rid of her! :)
That’s some of the nastiest vitriol I’ve ever read. I consider it proof that radical feminism rots the soul.
I think the elimination of patriarchy will cause, and is causing, the breakdown of our technological society.
Guys got married in order to have regular access to sex, and to have children (THEIR children, not raising somebody else's). If they can get laid without marriage, then that's less incentive to marry. If marriage turns into financial and emotional Russian Roulette, then that's less incentive. Guys mainly work at the the stressful, dangerous, necessary jobs because they want to make enough money to attract a good woman and support a family. Take away the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood, and guys will prefer continuing to live at home, and work at low-demand jobs that pay just enough to pay for their amusements.
Civilization stays up only as long as the men desire to hold it up. If they decide to pull an "Atlas Shrugged", then civilized society WILL FALL.
well maybe you already knew about the guy she was ref. to - Paul Gomille - that he really was suspended from the school FOR his remarks. Also it’s funny that his principal’s last name is “Modeste.” :) When I first read this (your post) I didn’t know that. ... But you might say that he was not really suspended “FOR” his remarks; but I think that really is why.
That was at nationalpost.com
This morning (after reading this thread) I started thinking about burqas. I dress modestly, but I don’t take it to that extreme, of course; so was thinking about Muslims forcing their women to wear a covering on the face [um, that’s a hijab?]. I couldn’t. :)
In the Bible Rebekah put a veil on when she was about to meet Isaac for the first time; and Tamar covered herself w/ veil; Leah maybe wore a wedding veil (thus Jacob didn’t identify her as Leah until the next morning). Tamar and Rebekah weren’t forced to do this, so, that’s different.
For reasons of our (USA) security, it wouldn’t be a good idea for anyone to cover their faces all the time. “duh”. :)
[pardon my musings.]
Anyway I couldn’t -— I would feel de-humanized. So I guess I could be considered rebellious in that sense; but it’s such an extreme. . . . this is from the perspective of someone who was made to wear certain things from a young age; that might be an unusual / weird viewpoint, to you. ... in the “big city” seemingly most people can’t identify with that kind of strict family background.
Enough of that. Thought of sending Paul Gomille a fruit basket or something. Oh yeah, can’t afford a fruit basket right now. :) - somebody ought to show support, eh? Hm.
Or since I’m getting into bitter melons lately, a bitter melon basket! *sardonic snicker* AKA “Karela” etc.
obviously I don’t know how to post URLs the way it should be done. I deeply apologize.
Oops, forgot - there are two Tamars in the Bible - this is the Tamar who is associated with Judah, not the Tamar who is associated with Amnon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.