Weapon of Mass Destruction

I don't mean guns, nor nuclear energy.
Nor do I mean a woman's bosom.

I mean religion.

Yes.
Religion.

Religion as a weapon of mass destruction.

It may seem very odd to hear someone who describes herself as 'religious' to be talking about religion in this way.
Except, it shouldn't surprise at all.

Religion as a tool used for one's own selfish ends.
We have all seen examples of this.

Al Quaeda terrorists who use Islam for their own earthly pursuits.
Cult leaders who use their 'religious powers' to abuse vulnerable women.
Catholic priests who use the veil of The Church to abuse children...
The list is as long as my arm...

I have known people to turn away from religion for life, based on what a 'religious' person has done.
This is sad on one level.
But I shan't dwell on it.

I was going to write a post on the Church's contribution to the SMP.
But since I don't know enough about my own religion let alone any other religion, I shall brood some more over this topic until I have the required insight.

In the meantime, I have been busy thinking about something else.
If this helps, the original title of this post was to be: 'Religion: don't let it be used against you'.

I know many people who are fiercely suspicious of anyone who claims to be religious.
It comes with the territory of being Catholic :-)
For some reason, Catholics more than most, attract this kind of fierce suspicion.
I do understand it. And it doesn't in fact surprise me in the least.
I have been witness to the justification of the most heinous atrocities. All in the name of Catholicism.




I was thinking recently about the particular disdain The Manosphere has for so-called 'religious' women.
I never understood it before.
In fact I was baffled by it.

It seemed to me that on the one hand, these men were in contempt of the 'less than perfect' women (the promiscuous, the unfeminine, the uncouth). Not that anyone is perfect in this world...

On the other hand, they also seemed to be bashing the 'good girls'.
What was the problem?
What gives? I mused.
I couldn't understand it for the life of me!

Dalrock, in particular, is less than impressed with the religious women and their accompanying 'manginas' who are always asking men to 'man up'.
His latest post is but one in a long line of many that address his particular issues with religious, notably, Christian women.
My self-addressed question, as always, was, why?
Why was he so anti-religious women?
To my naïve mind, he was holding up such women to higher standards than were fair.
He was giving these women a heavier cross to carry than they were already bearing.
Not fair.
Or so I thought.

But I missed something else.
Something that came crashing down on my own head as I parted company with a woman who was previously in my 'herd', albeit only ever on the periphery.
But first, I shall describe what I think some men are seeing when they see a religious woman.
And why I think when women like me and Bellita cry NAWALT, it is simply a red rag to a bull.


Women as a group are more drawn to religion than men. This is perhaps a historical and a social given.
This is not the same as saying that women are more moral than men.
Far from it.
But I can see how this distinction can be 'fuzzed' to womens' advantage.
Clever women can do this very well.
And apparently they have.
The problem is, savvy men have caught onto this phenomenon.
And now, all women must pay for this 'sin' committed by said clever women.

Bellita once used the following phenomenon as an analogy for something else - I forget what.
But that 'something else' does not matter and is not relevant here.
What interests me where this post is concerned is what Bellita described, which is, people using 'confession' as a way of absolving themselves from the same sin over and over again.

Now, confession is both an enigma to and a source of ridicule by non-Catholics. I am used to this.
It doesn't bother me (anymore).

But precisely because I am Catholic, I get what Bellita is saying. Very well in fact.

Religious people can use the concept of 'forgiveness' and 'compassion' which are cornerstones of any religion, to their own personal advantage.
In particular, religious women can sometimes use this to corner men into doing their bidding, without requiring change or effort of themselves.
In other words, religion is being used as a tool for one's own gratification, without the other party being aware of it, because it is being disguised as religion, (even though it is anything but).
Problem is, even the most irreverent of people will respect another's religion.
Until said religion is used against them.
And at this point, all gloves are off.
And then the religion becomes the target, not necessaily the person behind said religion.
This has happened before.
Many times in human history.



This is religious disingenuity at its very worst.
And The Manosphere somehow have got wind of this type of thing where it concerns the SMP (I am not sure how) and are reacting rather badly to it.
I cannot honestly say I blame them.

And now that I too have gotten wind of it, I don't know what to make of it.
It sure smells bad. And I certainly wish I hadn't got wind of it.
But it's too late.
I see it clearly.


I don't know why I do, but I find that a person who might otherwise benefit from the comforts of a religion, if denied access to that religion because they have been turned off it by someone using said religion in a disingenuous way, has been done a great disservice.
Others might see this as a 'blessing in disguise', because they might see religion as a hindrance rather than a help any way.
But that only helps make my point.

There is no guarantee that had I not been born and raised Catholic, that Catholicism would ever have attracted me.
But at least Catholicism has enabled me to achieve a certain spirituality that may or may not have been achievable without it. If that makes sense.
So although I am saying that Catholicism may not have been necessary for me to progress in my personal and spiritual life, for me, it has been useful in some undefinable way.
Had I been turned off it at an impressionable age because of someone else, I would have viewed that as an unforgivable offence by that person.
Even though it (like most things in life) is just a tool, not the essence of spirituality per se.
So, to give an extreme example, if I heard tomorrow that my local Archbishop had fathered ten kids by ten different women, I would still choose to be Catholic.
But I would be offended on behalf of those who would be turned off Catholicism by this news.



I now know why some men go into churches to specifically seek out 'the bad girl'.
Because this girl is the supporting pillar of the local nightclub scene on a Saturday night and as such she is indistinguishable from non-Christian women under the cover of night.
But come Sunday morning, she is sitting in the front pew.
Looking like butter wouldn't melt.
And now she is indistinguishable from a true Christian girl.
And when she is challenged about her behaviour, she replies 'God forgives all'. And 'Man up! - I am made clean by God now'.

Not once. Not twice.
Over and over again.

And when I or Bellita says NAWALT, men everywhere are smirking or seething.
Because (they think) they know better.

And this same woman described above will challenge other women if she feels 'judged' by them.
Note I said 'feels' and not 'is'.
Where is your religion now? she will ask.
Why are you being so harsh with me?
Why can't you show some compassion like Jesus did?

When all you asked was, 'Don't you think he had a right to be upset with you when you cheated on him with his friend?' or something similar.
For to themselves, they are unjudgable. Because Jesus forgives all. Repeatedly.
And the rest of the world had better get used to it (their bad behaviour).


Men have their own sins. But I am yet to find a man who can pull off this brand of religious disingenuity.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, if someone suggests Rush Limbaugh as an example of this, I shall say 'fair enough'.
But even this man, despicable as he may seem, is only pointing fingers at others, and not declaring himself to be the epitome of godliness.
In this sense, he is also a hypocrite of sorts, yes.
But not a self-proclaimed-holier-than-thou 'cheat'.
There is a subtle difference between 'you are less than holy' (Rush Limbaugh) and 'I want you to believe that I am holier than I really am' (subjects of this post).

I can't believe the depths to which my disappointment will sink.
Not least in my (now former) friend.
I have seen too many examples of religion being used in this way.
And it saddens me because now, even a sacred thing such as religion is being viewed with deep suspicion by pretty much half of the world's population.
Unacceptable.
And unforgivable.




I have learned to stay away from certain battles.
Because I have neither the desire nor the tenacity to win them.

It is enough to see things clearly.
Then I walk.
Or run.
Whichever is more effective.

The special snowflake

Re the women of The Manosphere:

"...We get accused of playing special snowflake..."

This comment by Just Visiting made me think more ardently about something I had been reflecting on for a while anyway.

It is indeed something I too have noticed about the Manosphere.

If I got a penny for each time I have had to defend womanhood in general by declaring NAWALT, I would be a seriously rich gal by now :-)

Re the 'special snowflake thing, I think this is a good example of what I will call the 'Trust me' syndrome.

There are some people who automatically clam up when someone begins their statement with 'Trust me'...

I know people who would run away holding their head in their hands whenever someone says to them, 'Trust me, I'm a doctor', or 'Trust me, I am ....(insert your own platitutude).

Such people are immediately programmed to switch off or not trust. Kinda like a reflex defence mechanism.

I think most men (and admittedly a lot of women too) are like this.

Men are not swayed by words as much as women. They live by the principle that no-one need advertise what they are. In other words, a real special snowflake is the one who is not saying she is :-)

You got it - another paradox!

They will look for evidence that she is a special snowflake by her actions. Women should do this too, but tend to be rather behind the men when it comes to this perhaps. I think It doesn't come so naturally to women because women are naturally more trusting than men - until experience teaches otherwise of course. Men are born, it seems, with a healthy dose of skepticism. I think they do let it slip occasionally just long enough to trust a woman they will eventually marry and it is kind of 'luck of the draw' if they get it right or not...

:-)

A man is programmed to look for evidence of 'special' in a woman, because he does not need to see a woman as special initially to get attracted to her because beauty (his attraction trigger) is in fact not unique, I have now realised. There are many beautiful women in the world.

A woman has to see a man as unique enough to be atrracted. For a man, no. Most women are attractive, physically. (But this is perhaps changing with a new phenomenon which I can't possible go into in this post - loaded with dynamite and I am not ready to be shot to bits for something that's not quite totally relevant to this post anyway. I shall stay out of this trap for now :-)

A man is on the lookout for the special snowfake in a woman as soon as his infatuation has worn off. That is, he is now in a position to test her mettle to see if she is a good fit for him (By this time, usually, a woman has already finished with her assessment of him - because if she is LTR-minded at least, she would have been looking for things that make him unique straightaway).

As they say, everyone is a legend in their own lunchtime.

We are all unique, at least to ourselves.

So even if a man ain't listening,a woman might still  shout from the rooftops (figuratively speaking of course) that she is SPECIAL, DAMMIT!

Clearly counterproductive and illogical, given what we know about men, but there we are...

Some women appear to do exactly this. In some men's eyes, at least. And there's nothing fiigurative about it. It is sadly all too literal.

Train wreck of a show when such women are 'sacrificed' on the altar of Manosphere Church.

Fair or fowl?

Like 'playing the victim', there is something comforting about a woman telling (certainly herself, but others too) that she is 'special'. Is this a femininity thing? I was never like this in the heyday of my tomboy phase :-)

Is this a necessary part of being a woman?

Or am I looking for an excuse to endorse 'attitude' in a woman when there is no need for this type of thinking?

Are men using this 'soft neg' as a way of browbeating women into submission? Or is this a harmless tease in the manner described in 'The shock factor'?

I am not knocking this Manosphere theme. There are some women who are far too entitled for their own good. Come to think of it, so are some men, but this post will focus on women since we are 'the accused' right now :-)

I agree it would be helpful for women to curb this tendency. I totally agree this is where the 'rationalisation hamster' can get out of hand and go into fatal overdrive.

But as usual, to make a point, people often pick the extreme cases. Fair enough - it is hard to be subtle and make an important point all at the same time.

I get that.

But is it ever helpful for a woman to stop telling herself she is special?

I think not.

The only problem is, whatever one tells oneself tends to be revealed in one's attitude :-)

Shame, because it would be great to have the required high self esteem without the apparent arrogance that comes with telling all and sundry that one is 'special'.

In all seriousness I can see how a woman who is too arrogant can be a turn off to men.

I think it's like how a man could be seen as a 'lovable rogue' but a woman is never a 'lovable b*tch'.

Like how a man can be irreverent and easily forgiven - a woman tries to do the same and she is heavily penalised - in most cases.

In each case, it is the audience that counts.

I will find an irreverent woman or man funny. I am not sure a man would find an irreverent woman funny, at least not in a way that benefits her.

I remember when Portuguese football (soccer) manager Jose Mourinho first got appointed as manager to Chelsea football club in London.

He was immediately making waves with his cocky 'I am 'The Special One' mantra. It was funny.

Was it funny because he is a man?

Somehow, a woman doing the same thing would be seen in a different light, if we are all honest about it.

I have to add here that in Mourinho's case, he was in fact justified in his attitude, because he really was special. He went on to lead several clubs to football glory. So he clearly knew what he was doing :-)

But what happens when a woman tells herself she is special?

With regards to the SMP, two things can happen.

1. She believes rightly or wrongly that she deserves better, based on her own self-assessment.

This only works against her if she has grossly overestimated her own worth.

But I think it is intrinsicallly good for a woman to feel good about her own worth. Wthout this 'feel good factor' bad things will happen to her. Low self worth is usually followed by evidence to prove the low self worth. And actually, the man she picks is automatically disrespected.

Why?

Because she is telling that man that she is low-value, and she is picking him.

Do men want to be with a low value woman? I guess not. Do men wnat to be with a woman who believes she is low value? Same answer - I guess not.

A high value woman is an asset. To herself and any man she picks. Because it is the ultimate respect to a man to get a woman who he believes and also just as importantly who the woman herself believes to be super.

The problem is when the high-value woman is so 'great' she cannot find anyone 'great' enough for her. Pie in the sky stuff.

Bad.

2. She believes (usually wrongly) that all or most men are not just less than she is, but are less than they actually are. This is a whole other animal, and very different from 'I am special'. This is now hypergamy on steroids.

Needless to say, this is what makes men seethe. I can understand this somehow.

The special,snowflake...

The Manosphere is not wrong about this.

But it is not completely right either.

The 'special snowflake' is every woman. And it is a product of 'the hamster'. It can be good or bad, loud or quiet, depending on the woman. It can be real or imagined, depending on the criteria the man is using.

But the irony is that most women are really 'the same', to most men, and it is men who have to be unique in order for 'the special snowflake' to be attracted to him in the first place.

It is the man who has to 'peacock'.

But he never says he is 'special'.

He prefers to show he is special.

He knows he is special and doesn't care who agrees or disagrees.

He is as he is. Take it or leave it.

Because he was born with, or acquired truckloads of confidence from somewhere. Err, can't think where :-)

And he can't stand a woman who says she is special.

Whether or not she actually is.

Bitter red pill for women to swallow.

But there we are.

C'est la vie.