Pat, thank you.

It is sad that we live in a world where young ladies must be asked to sign such a pledge, but we have to be realistic and meet the world where it is.

My own teen daughters seem to think that every difference acknowledged between males and females is “sexist”.  I am baffled by this.

Please read and learn the history of “ladylike” and “gentlemanly” behaviors.  The origins of these concepts are very much rooted in sexism.  You may ultimately make the same claims that you offer here, but it’s disingenuous to simply lament a loss of “ladylike” behaviors without at least acknowledging the very real, sexist problems associated with this concept and why it has been abandoned by many.  Differences in and of themselves are not sexist.  But there is no legitimate reason why boys shouldn’t be taught to refrain from cursing, as well.  Cursing isn’t an issue of sex—it’s an issue of personal character, which transcends male/female identity.

Try asking this of young Catholic women and you’ll be mocked continually.  Merely suggest that something as innocuous as a skirt would be distinctively feminizing, and Simcha Fisher would be on you with her “pants pass” and cast you as some sort of ultra-trad ghoul quicker than you could utter a curse word. So, good luck with that.

Grace,
I think gentlemanly & ladylike behaviors are also reflective of personal character.They only differ in gender, not in substance.

It is pretty silly that the school would only have girls sign such a pledge.  Cursing is nasty behavior no matter what your sex and there is no reason why boys shouldn’t be taught and challenged to refrain from doing so. 
I’m all for encouraging ‘manly’ behavior in boys and feminine behavior in girls but cursing and swearing doesn’t fall under either.

Teachers have always known that students will rise to your level of expectation. Holding them to a high standard of academic and behavioral expectation will usually improve performance. But it begins at home. If crude talk is accepted at home then trying to change it is like saying your parents are bad. Home, school, church and society have to get on the same page but if it isn’t in the home don’t expect it to filter into society. Family is the root of society.

It seems that we are in such a society where a single institution can not even try to ask for a pledge like this. We are not allowed to try. What these people are afraid of? It seems that open-minded people hates to open their minds.

I don’t see why cursing is any more desirable in a man than in a girl.  I think that’s a terrible double standard.  Sure, I know men often do curse more, and I don’t really think it’s realistic to expect them to completely stop, but I think it would do them good to try.

I honestly think the only difference between men and women cursing is that men have more occasions when they are seriously tempted to.  It’s hard to imagine drilling through your finger or hammering it as my husband often does without coming up with something a little more colorful.  So I understand when men do it, but that doesn’t necessarily make it good or something to be overlooked.

Grace - Mr. Archbold states, “I am not in favor of either gender cursing.”  He is clearly not saying that boys shouldn’t be taught to refrain from cursing.  In fact, he saying that women, by acting like “ladies” (a term which I suppose you find insulting, will actually call boys and men to a higher standard. 
Also, you don’t give reasons for your claim that the ideas of women acting “ladylike” and men acting “gentlemanly” are rooted in sexism.  So, what are they?
I liked the article, and as a woman, I don’t find it sexist in the least.  In fact, maybe I’ll even try harder to quit letting those four-letter-words slip.  Lent is right around the corner, after all.

Beautiful.  Agreed.  I am a product of my generation, and at 35, still need reminders to strive to be more ladylike.  Thank you.  :)  I’ll have my daughters read this!

In a word?  Yes.

Furthermore, this kind of stupidity impairs our ability to have a serious and meaningful discussion on cussing, slang, and virtue and vice in speech.

Either cussing is a vice, which means it is wrong for everyone, as unmanly as it is unladylike.  Or it is not a vice, in which case “ladies don’t cuss” is a meaningless restriction on our speech.  It’s a discussion worth having, but everyone is called to a life of virtue, and holding women to higher standards (and severer consequences) in virtue is fundamentally unjust.

GeekLady, looks to me like either you or I have missed the point.  Where has anyone said that men should be permitted to cuss and women shouldn’t?  Where has anyone said that men shouldn’t be called to virtue and women should?

Is cussing particularly unfeminine?  I think so, and I don’t think that holding this opinion makes me sexist.  Does that mean I think vulgarity is just fine for men?  No, it doesn’t.

@Pilgrim: note that Mr. Archbold says “I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to single out girls for a call to better behavior.” He is singling out women in a way which it is quite legitimate to criticize. I certainly think he has good intentions, and I agree with him that women should act womanly and men should act manly, but I think this is not exactly fair.

So I largely agree with GeekLady, though I don’t think it’s necessarily sexist to ask young women to be ‘ladylike’; it largely depends on what you mean by that. If it merely means “act like a virtuous woman”, which I think it sometimes does, then I have no problem with it.

Yes, I get that he’s explicitly said he’s all for calling girls to a higher standard IN THIS REGARD.  And what’s his reasoning?  Girls acting ladylike will encourage men and call them to a higher standard, just by virtue of women acting like ladies.  So he has complimented women by basically saying, (my own paraphrase) “Your effect on men is so strong that it only takes your acting like ladies to encourage them to act more gentlemanly.” Yet, some are getting worked up because this is “unfair” and somehow unjust.  I completely disagree.  It is not as if he has said or even implied that men should speak in a vulgar fashion, or that it’s perfectly all right for them to do so.  And I don’t think you can very well call women to act in a ladylike manner without in someway singling them out.  The virtues associated with a woman being “ladylike” are often very different from those associated with a man being “gentlemanly.”  This is as it ought to be.  Either men and women are the same, or they are different.  But you can’t say you’re in favor of women being ladylike but not in favor of women being singled out in some way.  It just doesn’t work both ways.

I think they should have everyone sign that pledge, and reinforce that it is manly to be gentlemanly, and it is womanly to be ladylike. Sex-specific pledges should apply to matters of style rather than morals, because everyone should be moral.
As for ladies influencing men to be gentlemen, maybe. But I think we lost gentlemen first, and women became tired of being responsible to uphold a standard no one took seriously anymore, sort of holding up the culture all alone with no help so to speak.

“I suppose that without ladies, you will never have gentlemen.”

Men and women do influence each other’s behavior, but the burden for men to act like gentlemen is on men, not on women.  Women are not allowed to give the excuse that men aren’t acting uprightly, so therefore it’s too hard to “be a lady”, and it should be the same for men.  You threw out one sentence that said you weren’t in favor of either gender cursing, and then spent an entire article criticizing a woman’s use of cursing.  GeekLady has the right of it; if cursing is wrong (or just very unbecoming in most cases), neither men nor women should do it.

Pilgrim
My primary objection is that this sort of blurring between convention and morality obscures an important discussion we ought to have about how we use language.  Is cussing a vice?  Are specific words good, bad, or morally neutral?  Does the context they’re used in matter?  What about the broader culture in which we live?
But however these questions are argued, to specifically call out women for cussing (which, good or bad, involves a jumble of broadly shared human impulses) is the very definition of sexist.  You are either holding them to a specific (and restrictive) convention because they are women, or you are demanding more virtuous behavior because they are women.
*sigh* This has been screaming for a blog post for weeks, but I just don’t knw where I’ll find the time.

Serena - so men and women are the same, or only different in matters of style?  And how is a sex-specific pledge implying that not everyone should be moral?  If the example were different, and girls were called upon to remain virgins until marriage, would the implication be that boys should NOT remain virgins until marriage?  I don’t think so.  And you can say “The men were wrong first” all you want, but you give no foundation for that claim.  Even if it were true - how petty.

Pilgrim: I assume that this author, you, and all other readers have access to the internet and a slew of information that can be readily accessed regarding the origins of “ladies” and “gentlemen.”  Start with chivalry.

Geeklady - I don’t think anyone has claimed that the discussion of the morality of using vulgar language applied to both sexes shouldn’t happen.  I think it’s a different issue, and a fine one to discuss.  I think the questions you raise with regard to that are fine and good, so I agree with you there.
However, I disagree that the discussion of whether women should be called upon to act “ladylike” obscures the discussion that you are broaching.  And I certainly disagree that calling women to be “ladylike” is the very definition of sexist.  As I mentioned to Maggie D a few comments up, if women and men are different, and there are different virtues specifically associated with each, then it only makes sense that they would be called to become virtuous in those particular ways.  Calling women to not use vulgar language in no ways makes it OK for men.  And I think you disagree with me, maybe even on the very fact of whether men and women are fundamentally different, but in seeing HOW men and women are different, I see nothing sexist about saying that it’s particularly unfeminine to use vulgarity. 
And what about the compliment it pays women to tell them that the way they behave and act directly influences men?  I don’t know why women are finding this insulting.  And I think it’s true that men acting gentlemanly calls women to act in a more feminine way.  I almost suggested that if men were called to sign a pledge to start opening doors for women, there wouldn’t be nearly as much of an uproar, but you know what?  Feminism has harmed the common woman’s way of thinking so much that there probably would still be an uproar.  Something like “How DARE they imply that we women are incapable of opening our own doors?!” 

Pilgrim, virginity is actually a terribly good analogy for this.  Pretend this was a virginity pledge.  Why on earth would they make it exclusive to girls, when virginity before marriage is a virtue for both sexes?  To call virginity ‘ladylike’ or ‘feminine’,  directly implies that the opposite is manly and masculine!

I think holding either gender to a higher standard than the other is a terribly unfair double-standard. Also, I wear pants becasue the majority of my time is spent on the floor, crawling around after babies and wiping buttts. This is easier for me to do in pants. I don’t wear make-up or jewelry because a) I don’t have the time and b) I spend the day being pawed constantly by little hands. They break my jewelry and smudge the make-up so why bother? I used to veil, but my kids invariably yank it off, usually accompanied by a handful of hair. High heels are far more likely to crush little fingers if I have to get somewhere in a hurry. I’m not ladylike. I make no apologies.

Agree with your article, Pat.  I quit cussing on my own not because it’s not ladylike but because I don’t think it pleases God.

I think some of the primary objections to the call for women to be more ladylike to instill better virtue in men is that it can very easily be interpreted as “one’s behavior is in part conditional on someone else’s behavior.” Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but every person over the age of reason who has had reasonable formation and instruction should be entirely responsible for his or her conduct. Ergo, if a 16 year-old boy is not as gentlemanly as he could be, that is his own fault and perhaps partially the fault of those who raised him - not because his female classmates swear and cannot find modest clothes in the mall.

Further, I am with Serena in that by such attention devoted to calling on women to be more ladylike to remember modesty and chastity and no equal weight of attention given to blog posts about encouraging boys to be virtuous, women are “sort of holding up the culture all alone with no help so to speak.” You men are called to be like St. Joseph: guardians and protectors of virtues, not dictators of it. To me, guardianship looks like cultivating an attitude in your sons, nephews, male students and congregants of proper behavior. If males are visual creatures and prefer to act than read to talk about things, then by all means, if you adult men want boys to act more like gentleman, you need to start better modeling that behavior. To those who are, kudos, and we are grateful. But some of your brothers need help, and we women would like to have one fewer mess to be responsible for cleaning up. A real man stands so the lady can sit down.

Geeklady - my only point in using virginity as an example was that it’s unreasonable to say that having a pledge for one sex necessarily implies that the other ought not to do it. 
But to answer your question, I can think of a few reasons that someone might have a virginity pledge directed toward girls.  And then Mr. Archbold’s point would still stand - the girls’ actions would necessarily call the boys to a higher standard.

Pilgrim, or the boys would would just go elsewhere. Sadly, the boys I knew from an all boys school actually passed on rules of thumb to each other: girls school X was for easy girls and girls school Y was for marriageable girls.  School y girls being feminie didn’t raise the boys’ standards. The boys just went elsewhere to get their jollies and came back when they were ready to settle down with virgins, having not “kept” themselves for marriage. Is that a microcosmic example? Yes. But I think it illustrates why holding one sex to a different standard can be damaging to both sexes. I hold my sons to the same standards that I hold my daughters.

I have to disagree as well here, Matthew.  I was encouraged to see the recent development in which some of the boys asked to take the pledge as well.  Holding only one gender to a behavioral standard usually implies that there’s something okay about the other gender misbehaving, even if that’s not the intended message.

I dislike the framing of issues that takes an approach which can perhaps be summed up as “Boys will be boys, but girls should be ladies.”  You write that you’d like to see both genders stop cussing, but then write that the world doesn’t need women who act like men (implying, even if you don’t intend this, that cussing = “acting like men”).  I think that both boys and girls can give up vulgar habits without any gender issues being part of the situation.

Moreover, being ‘ladylike’ is often such a stilted standard. You can be virtuous without being ‘ladylike’ (i. e. conforming to certain, specific cultural standards of what woman act like) and ‘ladylike’ without being virtuous. St. Joan of Arc was womanly, insofar that any woman fulfilling God’s will is womanly, since it fulfills her nature, but she wasn’t exactly ladylike. Nor were the virgin martyrs ladylike, defying their culture and the expectations for the sake of the kingdom.

What arbitrary definition of “ladylike” is Pat defending here? I probably wouldn’t be considered very ladylike because of some strong personality characteristics, but my husband is not emasculated by them, and I am otherwise very feminine. I was raised to be a take-charge woman by a very strong father who told me to find a man who was as strong as I was.
“Bottom line, you cannot make ladies of young women by asking them to be equal parts sugar, spice, slugs, and snails.” What does that even mean? That we can’t have “masculine” characteristics and still be “ladies”—fine.  I’ll just stick with being a WOMAN then - in all my complicated GOD GIVEN glory. And I will raise my daughter to be just as strong and opinionated and fierce as her mother is, and trust God to show her a husband who respects strong women like her Daddy does.

Girls should NEVER be held responsible for the choices and actions of men/boys. By insisting that girls be held to a “higher standard” so as to “gentle” the out-of-control boys is a terrible reflection on the nature and character of men and boys. That’s akin to saying that men can’t control themselves. I agree with GeekLady and Grace that we are ALL called to higher standards for the benefit of each other.

i saw a quote somewhere recently that went something like “I wonder often if girls were willing to be ladies, more guys would be challenged to be gentlemen.” women are children’s first teachers in etiquette. everyone has heard “my mama taught me right.”  it’s our job to lead, ladies!

also, Blessed Fulton Sheen talked about this in The World’s First Love, about how women started resembling men more and more and so men stopped opening their doors and giving up their seats. if we want to be treated like a lady, then we need to act like one. amen! just wait, though. someone may actually find a way to disagree with you. on the Register, there is always one.

Try asking this of young Catholic women and you’ll be mocked continually.  Merely suggest that something as innocuous as a skirt would be distinctively feminizing, and Simcha Fisher would be on you with her “pants pass” and cast you as some sort of ultra-trad ghoul quicker than you could utter a curse word. So, good luck with that.

It’s always strange to me that people feel it necessary to tell obvious lies in order to win trivial arguments.  For, of course, Simcha would say or think no such thing.  She has never said a word against skirts or anything distinctly femininizing.  What she has done is told weird Catholic males with control issues that their need to dominate and boss women around about orders about what they can and can’t wear does not create a corresponding need for women to obey weird Catholic males with control issues.  Women who want to wear skirts can knock themselves out.

You should apologize to Simcha for telling such an obvious lie about what she thinks, Heather.

There is no question we should ask girls to refrain from cursing. BUT… we need to ask the same from boys as well. I am very disturbed by the apparent moral double standard you seem to be expressing. It smacks too much of the double standard I encountered as a teen girl in the 70s - that boys will be boys and girls should be better. No! Girls should not be better. Different, yes, but not better. That’s a male cop-out for excusing bad male behavior. It’s too much like the muslim double-standard that expects a level of modesty in women not required by men and placing the onus on women to cover-up so they don’t tempt males into bad behavior.

Oh, boy, what a confusing mish-mash! 
.
You’re “...not in favor of either gender cursing…” but you “...have no problem with asking young women to be superior to their male counterparts.”
.
You think that “...ladies don’t curse (much),” (but apparently men do, which is why we shouldn’t ask them to stop, even though you’re not in favor of men cursing.)
.
And young women should be taught to be ladies, but “...we need to teach our boys to be men…,” not, I note, *gentlemen*.
.
And somehow the issue of young women cursing has to do with the differences between boys and girls.  Even though you’re not in favor of men cursing.

Um, no.  The boys at this school who asked to be allowed to “take the pledge” are on the right track here.  Young women and young men should both strive for civility in their speech.  We’re a couple of hundred years out from “spare-my-blushes,” and giggling coyly behind one’s fan.

Nothing wrong with cursing - but, if there were, both men and owmen should refrain from it.  If men need women to act like shrinking violets just so that they can continue to preen themselves on their superior machismo, this strikes me as a scenario in which we are all trying WAY TOO HARD to perpetuate outmoded gender roles.  If we need to work this hard ot force them, maybe it’s time to just recognize that they’re not really rooted in nature?

God wants us to work towards perfection as unique individuals….not as little clones based on a romanticized ideal of the past. Anyway, “lady” and “gentleman” are loaded words, socio-economically….they only work by bracketing out those who are the wrong race / class / color/ religion. Read some Flannery O’Connor and get a life.

I base my understanding of Pat’s writing on his past writing and what I can determine of his outlook on life.

Putting aside the issue of cursing, and assuming that “ladylike” means “refined, not vulgar”, I agree that males act better around these types of ladies, young or old.  My husband’s great grandmother inspires everyone to live up to a higher standard.  She is gracious and polite without any sort of arrogant air implying that she is better than people around her. She simply goes about being herself, and because she is so refined—refined in the sense of using respectful language and speaking kindly to others—other people feel good about being around her and are inspired to be more like her in her presence.

A gentlemanly man—refined, not vulgar—likewise inspires better behavior of people around him.

Young men have just as much responsibility as young ladies do to act respectful. Young men who are just plain cads and do not care how their behavior affects others are going to keep being cads.  Young men who *do* care about hoe their behavior affects others are going to try not to offend other people.  If the young ladies around them do not curse or otherwise act in a vulgar manner, the **considerate** young men will make more of an effort to avoid doing so in order to avoid offending.  The cad will not care.  And, in fact, it seems to me that one sign of a cad is a young man who is vulgar in the company of young ladies.

That is not fair, but the world is not fair.  Observing an unfair reality is not the same as endorsing it.

Cussing and swearing is unbecoming in a man, but in a women it seems worse. I’m only just about 40, and I suppose it’s a matter of opinion
whether I’m a “product of my generation” or someone “raised in a closet.”
The same goes for drunkenness. I’ve seen both men and women drunk, and
while I don’t like to see either, there’s something even more disturbing
about a drunken female than a drunken male. I don’t think it’s sexist
at all to make the distinction. I’d like for those who think it so to more clearly explain how a gut reaction can be rooted in sexism, because I think the gut has a lot to do with it. I don’t think it’s a sexist idea imposed by men in the past; I think it’s part of God’s signature on our souls. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that it’s part of natural law, though even that doesn’t hold much weight with many folks these days.

GeekLady:
You raise some excellent points. Definately some ideas worth discussing.  Have you read Erin Manning over at http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/ ?

Hey Pat, can you hear me back there in the 1950’s?

“I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to single out girls for a call to better behavior.”

Um… why? Is swearing what makes a man a man? I suppose it’s like having sex. I mean, women need to be sexually pure, but if a man’s still a virgin - pathetic, right?

Yes, I do think men and women are, generally speaking, different from each other. That doesn’t mean we should hold women to a higher standard when it comes to morality.

You’re very kind to a cranky pregnant lady, Freddy.  I have read Erin’s post, but the extensive amount of consideration I’ve given this is largely rooted in Calah Alexander’s original discussion of cussing.
I do need to write them up, but between my load at work and my preschooler wetting my bed last night I don’t know where I’ll find the time…

I agree Mr. Archbold.

“To a great extent the level of any civilization  is the level of its womanhood.  When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her.  The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her.  The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”  (Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen)

I am going to demonstrate that I am an old fogey.  It would have been incomprehensible to curse in the Catholic School I attended.  To do so would have earned a trip to the principal’s office, and a well deserved follow up at home.  We were expected to aspire to be ladies and gentlemen.

““I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to single out girls for a call to better behavior.”

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.  So much for calling men to greatness. Posts like this reflect a cultural versus spiritual Catholicism, the wisdom of guys over beer, not guys over Scripture. Its locker room mentality, which is more often than not as wrong as right. If behavior is wrong, it is every bit as wrong for guys.

@Heather
With Simcha Fisher you can say literally anything you want including
anti-pants/pro-skirts, which I am too, as long as you’re funny and don’t come off as mad or taking yourself too seriously, for which you will receive justifiable ridicule. Humor is the currency. Try making fun of pro-pants people instead of making solemn moral declarations.

The double standard expressed by Mr. Archibold is morally unacceptable.  What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  A true man does not need a woman to “civilize” him.  Would anyone dare suggest that of St Joseph, that he needed Mary to “civilize” him?  The notion is ludicrous on its face.  With all due respect to the late Archbishop Sheen, we are permitted to disagree with him on this matter.

I remember hearing a story about Ulysses Grant, when he was marching with his soldiers.  Some of them told an off-color joke, for which the general reprimanded him.  The soldier tried to excuse himself by saying, “but there are no ladies present”.  Grant replied, “true, but there are gentlemen present”.

Edgy topic. What most of the PC police here don’t yet realize is they are way behind the times! Today’s intellectual fad is “old is the new new”. Get with it fashionistas: classic feminity is in, “we can do it” feminism is out! Now that I’ve alerted you to the newest gender trend you can subsume it into your psyche and vocally support it with appropriate gusto in comment sections, confident that you’re not the odd one out. And also trick yourself into believing you came up with it independently because you just really happen to believe and favor it, just like you do with the newest trending baby names, fashionable scarves, ear warmers and exercise pants.
Also, of course men are allowed to cuss. It follows from the same principle that gives us the exclusive right to slap our bellies and burp after dinner. As Peter Kreeft once said, “It’s a crime against good taste, not against good religion.”

all you high-horse commenters are so out-dated it’s hilarious. You sound like you’re stuck in the 70s. Get with the times.

Premise 1: Men and women are different and should therefore be treated differently and are called to Holiness in different ways.  Agreed.

Premise 2: Focusing on the cursing habits of Catholic High School “ladies” is a good example of how to appropriately differentiate the call to Holiness in men and women.  Disagreed.  It simply doesn’t make sense NOT to open it up to both genders UNLESS there is a clear double standard about who is being encouraged to curse and who is not.

Just becuse men and women are different does not mean a “boys will be boys” attitude (which, in my opinion, is clearly reinforced by having girls but not boys sign a no-cursing pledge) is not a good way to call either gender to Holiness.

We worship faux equality now. That is our god and the only unpardonable sin. Heaven forbid any difference between male and female.

As another poster mentioned drinkeness is a sin. Worse in females than males. Cursing is a sin. Worse in females than males. We could go on, but the point is the post modern mind sees maleness and femaleness as nothing but social constructs used to oppress women. Common sense is very uncommon.

Well, I for one am an example of how girls acting as ladies can raise the behavior of men. When I was in 7th grade, there was an 8th grade girl whom I liked and would call frequently. At that age, I had fallen into the habit of swearing during regular conversation, in part because all of my guy friends did the same and it seemed an example of manliness.

Well, this girl put an end to that for me. How? Well, during one conversation on the phone, I must have uttered some vulgarity, because I still remember her response: “Michael, girls aren’t impressed by guys who cuss.”

Wham. For me, her response was a bucket of cold water. She knew that she deserved better than speaking to a guy who would use foul language in her presence. While I knew cursing was wrong and that I shouldn’t do it, blah, blah, blah, it wasn’t until a member of the fairer sex laid out the higher expectation that I realized how my behavior affected both women and me (and my male friends). My mouth cleaned up substantially that very afternoon, and I did not find it difficult to raise my standard of conduct.

Yes, I should have acted more like a gentlemen before this girl said anything to me. However, her actions and words did improve my behavior.

My only quibble with Pat’s article is his failure to also tie in a virtuous cycle. When more men start acting more like gentlemen and expect more ladylike behavior from the various women in their lives, women will also respond and expect men to act even more as gentlemen.

Posted by Martin Soy on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2013 11:44 PM (EDT):

I am going to demonstrate that I am an old fogey.  It would have been incomprehensible to curse in the Catholic School I attended.  To do so would have earned a trip to the principal’s office, and a well deserved follow up at home.  We were expected to aspire to be ladies and gentlemen.”
**************************************
In the fairly recent past, a male student cussed in front of a nun in the small Catholic school my children attended.The boy’s father was informed.Shortly afterwards the father showed up at school with a bar of soap & proceeded to wash out his son’s mouth with it in the presence of the sister who had been offended.
So, you’re not that old a fogey.
:)

Ladies should behave like ladies, and gentlemen like gentlemen.  If you’re going to ask my daughter not to cuss at school, and I’ll agree that she shouldn’t be cussing period, please also ask my son to refrain from the same behavior, because it is just as unbecoming coming from his mouth as it is from hers.

My husband doesn’t cuss, thank goodness, and if he had been foul-mouthed when I met him I wouldn’t have been attracted to him in the first place.

Women and men are different, but when it comes to what is or what is not acceptable behavior, boys and girls should not be held to different standards.  We will not wait for his future wife to come along and help our son be more civilized, but my husband and I will raise him properly and teach him to be a gentleman from the very beginning.  Women do need to be ladies, as it encourages men, and perhaps helps them to avoid sin, but even if every woman were a tramp the men would still be morally obligated to behave as gentlemen.

“but even if every woman were a tramp the men would still be morally obligated to behave as gentlemen.”

Yeah, theoretically you are correct but realistically it isn’t going to happen which is what all the reactionary responses are missing in regards to Mr. Archbolds post. 
Is the Archbishop incorrect?
“To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood.  When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her.  The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her.  The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”  (Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen)

When women are not of higher virtue the level of civilized man diminishes.  You may not like the responsibility but it is truth.  Women always talk about “empowerment” but what women fail to realize is they hold much power and with it comes responsibilities unique to their sex.

“but even if every woman were a tramp the men would still be morally obligated to behave as gentlemen.”

Yeah, theoretically you are correct but realistically it isn’t going to happen which is what all the reactionary responses are missing in regards to Mr. Archbolds post. 

Is the Archbishop incorrect?
“To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood.  When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her.  The higher her virtue, the more her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her.  The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.”  (Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen)

When women are not of higher virtue the level of civilized man diminishes.  You may not like the responsibility but it is truth.  Women always talk about “empowerment” but what women fail to realize is they hold much power and with it comes responsibilities unique to their sex.

proverbialgirlfriend, Ellen, and Erin Manning are spot on.  Especially when the latter writes this:  “I dislike the framing of issues that takes an approach which can perhaps be summed up as “Boys will be boys, but girls should be ladies.””

Yes.  If cursing is not good—and it isn’t—then it goes for both boys and girls.  Roughousing among boys is one thing, but there’s also room for civility, politeness, and respect among men, too, all of which have everything to do with modesty and chastity in thought, word, and action, and none of which have anything to do with being a prim and proper silly goose or sissy;  something that those boys who also took the no-cussing pledge seem to have understood.  So I do wonder if the words “ladies” and “gentlemen” have suffered a little too much from sentimentalist cultural baggage, as have our ideas of being men and women.  The last thing I want to do is to take someone like Fr. Robert Barron out of context, but I do think that his latest ruminations on faith, hope, and charity, and how our culture misconstrues them somewhat applies here (one of the big ones being that somehow, being good and being charitable boil down to being “a nice guy” and “a nice gal”).  And if I understand manhood, womanhood, and the sacramental life correctly, both manhood and womanhood conformed to Christ are virtuous and as tough as nails, which makes the culture’s ideas of manhood and womanhood, “nice” and “respectable” or not, look puerile and shallow.

I think the same sort of thing also pops up when it comes to dressing modestly for Mass (I don’t wish to run this discussion off track to make it about dress, but I do think there are some interesting parallels worth mentioning):  I read and hear a lot about “dressing like ladies and gentlemen” and “dressing formally,” skirts versus pants ad nauseum, and who can and cannot afford “nice” clothes and “cute” clothes, but precious little about dressing in a way that is humble, in order to comport one’s self with the solemn, joyful dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  The bottom line is that we all decrease so that the Lord may increase:  the wedding feast of the Lamb may be a banquet, but it is not a dinner party.

I’m also with proverbialgirlfriend that anyone at and over the age of reason is responsible for his or her own behavior.  Girls and women are not here to stop boys and men from sinning, and we’re not here to take the blame for when they can’t be bothered to take responsibility for their own actions.  Else, we’re back to “God, the woman you gave me gave me the apple…” Yeah.  We’ve been there before.  And hasn’t Christ admonished us all not to sin on someone else’s account?  The best we can do is to be chaste, and to help men by modeling how we ought to be treated—with reverence and respect—rooted in our God-given dignity, and to admonish bad behavior coming from anyone at all.  All of that should effectively undercut superficial standards (including double standards) for being “ladylike” and equally superficial standards for “equality,” wherein women should behave like men behaving badly in order to be “equal.”  As Ellen points out, the opposite is also true:  if every girl or woman were a tramp, men would still be morally obligated to behave as gentlemen—because the “tramp” in question is still made in the image of God, no matter how hard she’s trying to deny or fight it. 

“[Simcha Fisher] has never said a word against skirts or anything distinctly femininizing.  What she has done is told weird Catholic males with control issues that their need to dominate and boss women around about what they can and can’t wear does not create a corresponding need for women to obey weird Catholic males with control issues.”

Mr. Shea, I love it!

Feminist ideology does not allow dissent.

“Feminist ideology does not allow dissent.”  Thanks, Anon.  Nice red herring.

When will those who cry “sexism” here notice that Pat Archbold’s use of the phrase “the fairer sex” is both sexist and misleading.

Females are referred to as “the fairer sex” not because of any behavioral characteristics more prominent in females but because an effect of estrogen is the lightening of the complexion.  Ceteris paribus the female has a fairer complexion.

But for an accident of language, females escaped being dubbed “the fainter sex”.

Nothing wrong with cursing

Actually, yes there is.

Ephesians 5:1-4

1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Thank you, Geek Lady and company, for the able defence! There are just so many outrageous lines in this post…I have to confess to living in enough of a little bubble that I was really, genuinely shocked and sickened to read it.

Pat, can you give us another post with examples of universally unacceptable behaviours you would find appropriate to forbid from *male* students, but permit from female? A few things just too “ungentlemanlike” to countenance - that would still okay for the girls to do?

Also, Pat, you should go read what Calah Alexander has to say on the subject of your title. “Fairer Sex” indeed!

(Gosh, all of this just might turn me, too, into a feminist against my will!)

Very sad and a classic case of the perfect becoming the enemy of the good.

The reality is that, as angry as it makes the feminists to say it, there are some vices that men are more given to than women, and are less attractive in women, because men and women are different.

To try to prevent a program which would do some good, because the sexes aren’t being treated as identical, is a sad sign of the horribly destructive influence of feminism in our times. 

This mentally says, I would rather have no good done than some good done, because treating the sexes as “identical” is the highest, if not the only, good.

Grace,

No red herring. Our thinking is so infected with feminist ideology we can not see that
faux equality is not equality at all.

Suggesting that I favor boys cursing is imbecilic and demonstrates very poor reading comprehension skills.

Many people who read your piece only see inequality. They do not see the true picture you painted. Perceived inequality is one of the few sins that cannot be forgiven in this culture.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Go raibh maith agat. Thank you!!!

Perhaps Heather does owe Simcha Fisher an apology, but then I wonder why Mr. Shea doesn’t require an apology of himself toward the author of the editorial whom he has label a “weird Catholic [male] with control issues.”  I would guess he knows just about as much personally of that man to conclude that he has “control issues” as Heather does of Mrs. Fisher to conclude that she has something against feminine skirts.

Cordelia, you already are a feminist; you just don’t realize it yet.

This entire conversation seems ridiculous—presumably, ALL students at a Catholic school should not be cursing.  It shouldn’t matter if you’re a boy or a girl.  And the last time I checked, the goal we’re shooting for is Christ-likeness (for boys *and* girls), which doesn’t include cussing.

Yes, Nancy - that’s it exactly! If it is bad, it’s bad for male students just as much as female; why on earth make a distinction? And, Pilgrim, I really am beginning to think I must reconsider my rejection of the “feminist” label. I was brought up on the very edge of the Protestant Fundamentalist movement - I’m a recent, euphoric convert to the Church - so “feminists” for me were always those who agitated for the ordination of women, the murder of babies, the denigration of housewifery, the support of lesbians, etc. On their lunatic-fringe, they even praised the theoretical concept of a world with MEN. Evil lunacy! So I’m torn…rejecting all that completely, but also rejecting the lunatic-fringe of the “opposing side” in which Pat (and rule-makers of the school) appear to be ankle-deep. My request earlier for another, matching post “for the boys” was meant in utter earnestness; I do hope it will be written. In the meantime, here is my husband’s take on it: “That’s crazy! If anybody should be singled out for ‘a call to better to behaviour’, it ought to be the boys…hasn’t anybody heard of *leading by example*? They’ve got chivalry all backwards.” So you see, THAT’S the happy little bubble I inhabit…

Nancy,

It is ridiculous because those with a feminist ideology complained.

I stand with the original point I made: it is ridiculous that ALL students at a Catholic high school aren’t challenged to live up to a “no cursing” standard.  If I were a tuition-paying parent, I would be extremely dismayed that “no cursing” wasn’t a given in a Catholic and Christian environment.  That’s not feminism, it’s common sense.

The school did not say anyone should curse.

I think you’re right and wrong on this.  I think that girls should be encouraged to a higher standard of behavior (call it ladylike, for lack of a better word), but I don’t think that a silly rule imposed on girls but not on boys is the way to go about it.  This is more likely to create resentment and rebellion on the part of the girls than it is to encourage them to better behavior.

Claire - there is a difference between a rule and a pledge.  I think that’s an important point in this discussion.

The problem we have in society is that because of feminism, both genders generally are now opportunists. When Gentlemen and Ladies were the norm, there was etiquette. Some was bizarre. Some was sexist. On both sides there was good and bad. But regardless of that, there was pride and respect.

Modern society has no etiquette. Women want equal rights, but demand men be chivalrous. Men who are chivalrous naturally are seen as either weak or with suspicion: thus they soon decide to give up. Both sexes now simply look for the “best deal” when it comes to courtship, and our society has descended into madness - wanting wealth above intellectual wealth.

I say bring back the molding of young people into Gentlemen and Ladies, where men and women spoke to each other with genuine interest, and dancing socially to meet people and for fun - rather than wearing next to nothing, usually fake tanned orange, grinding each other.

A drive for business causes society to groom our children to be opportunistic.
A drive to simply be a decent person grooms our children to appreciate everything in life.