Really - what can you say? I love my husband.

One of the bad side effects of this is that the reaction of many men is to go to the EXACT opposite extreme and declare any form of refinement to be feminine or ‘gay’.

What is needed is not to go to the other extreme but to return to the true norm.

Great article!

Brilliant article.  My father always said “don’t fall in love with your hair”, and I took that advice seriously.  What a bunch of wussies.

Good point, Mike. I actually see that more than what the article discusses (which is not to say that the latter doesn’t exist). I just see more and more men obsessing over their physical appearance—whether that means taking steroids, striving to have perfect calves, or wanting to look like a GQ model.

Amazing, Simcha.

Once again, you have hit the nail on the head!

“Good night, America. Sorry, Ben Franklin. It was a pretty good country, but it’s over now.”

That is probably one of the silliest comments I have ever heard.

There are many rational explanations for why men have changed; mostly because women have changed. Women use to need men to support them financially. It wasn’t just a nice thing; it was life or death. My mother grew up in a place and time where that was the case. When I was a little girl, I said a man was attractive and she told me, “Men don’t have to be attractive.”

Now, women can generally support themselves so they have become more like men—more superficial. Women can now afford to insist on things that they never use to and men respond accordingly.

The expectations of both sexes have changed. It is not uncommon to meet men who expect that their wives will generate an income and it is not uncommon to find women who want a man to keep up with his looks. As our roles have changed, we have become more like each other.

Anyway, I don’t think the sky will fall and the republic will survive this one.

I agree with much of what you are saying- there is a kind of “social castration” going on these days, and it very well could be related to the rise in vasectomies. However, I think it is inflammatory and unfair to state that a man who’s had such a procedure is “not a man.” What about men who are sterile through no fault of their own-  are they less than men, or are you only talking about men who choose sterility? I think some clarification is in order.

@ Carolyn Hyppolite:
 

“There are many rational explanations for why men have changed … Anyway, I don’t think the sky will fall and the republic will survive this one.”

 
Didn’t Sidonius write something like this? Right around the time the barbarians were coming over the horizon.

I think it has more to do with a growing disparity between the rich and poor. It makes me sad to see how rich people are wasting their money on utter vanity while kids are starving to death in Africa, and families are living on beans and rice even here.  It’s the epitome of selfishness and conciet, and it’s spreading like wildfire.

When women treat major plastic surgery like it’s a day at the hair salon, I’m not surprised it’s becoming more common among men.

But this isn’t anything new, either.  There were a lot of efeminite men in the 1800s.  You can read it in literature people ranting on about pale, soft, manicured men.  And that’s what women wanted.  Because the poor men had to work for a living. 

In theory, I don’t think it’s wrong to want to better yourself for your future spouse.  But I wouldn’t ask my husband to undergo surgery to do it.  I’d like it if he gained a little weight, but I don’t exactly care.  It doesn’t effect how I feel about him.

“Good night, America. Sorry, Ben Franklin. It was a pretty good country, but it’s over now.”That is probably one of the silliest comments I have ever heard”.

Not silly at all - in fact it’s right on target. Some men have turned into the wimps that their women want them to be - and have become more like women - what did u expect??. Fact is men and women are different, and their differences should be celebrated, not mainpulated.

Carolyn, your theory would work out just fine except for one little problem.  With 0 exceptions, all the women I have heard of who want their man to get plastic surgery or major make-overs are not career women.  They are gold diggers who would rather spend their husband’s money shopping and going to they gym 6 hours a day.  They are shallow to begin with, and if they can get their man to look better AND be rich, all the better.

Well all I can say is Ooh Raa! You rock Simcha, our country needs more women like you. And my wife. Not to mention real men.

Gicen all the very serious evils that have occured in this nation as well as those that occur today, I can’t imagine that the author honestly believes that this is a challenge to the Republic. I can only imagine that she’s being facetious.

Carolyn

Karen,

Gold diggers have always been with us. Therefore, that can’t be the reason why gold diggers did not expect attractiveness on top money and are now asking for it.

As for the plastic surgery, I think those cases are rare and extreme. The more common trend is that men are more mindful of their appearances than they use to be. I can only imagine that they are because women are also more mindful.

Anyway, if the author is fond of crow’s feet and callouses, more power to her. I am inclined to agree that there is a certain virtue in being indifferent to physical apprearances. If we did it Amish style, I might be impressed. But historically, women have had to do all the fussing about their looks while men enjoyed their beer guts. I am happy to see life get a little more fair. Also, I am just amused that we are treating this as a serious problem.

Well said and funny,too!
The most attractive men are the ones who are NOT self-absorbed. 
Vain men-Eeewwww!

There are men who have had vasectomies out of a real (if misguided) concern for their wives. I am sorry if a man in that position who now understands that what he did was wrong feels pain upon reading this. I am also thinking about all the women out there who have their tubes tied, even though this is a much more serious operation than a vasectomy, because their husbands wanted them infertile, but weren’t willing to take the physical burden of their wish for infertility upon themselves—husbands who in effect said to their wives, “Sure, I know you’ve borne all the physical burdens of our fertility so far—all those pregancies and childbirths, all the nursing and sleep deprivation. All the risk to your health, all the physical pain. But I want you to bear this burden too so I don’t have to.”

Simcha, I just love how you take a serious topic and hit all the most important points, while still being clever and amusing at the same time! :D Honestly, I’m not attracted to the metrosexual; a guy who takes longer to get ready than I do has serious issues, and a man who has more beauty products than I do is not a man (in my opinion) at all—I’m woman enough for the both of us! ;) 
Perhaps I’m being unfair, though.  Regardless, when I see highlighted and styled and gelled hair, manicured hands, perfectly pristine clothes ALL THE TIME, jewelry-wearing and all-around lovely guys, it kind of repulses me.  I like a somewhat rugged man, no spiked hair, rough and callused hands, hairy arms and legs and chest, and slightly clueless about how handsome God made him! :)  Our culture is trying to de-feminize women and emasculate men, and frankly, it’s just disgusting.

@Abby - I guess that goes to show I do live in a little Catholic bubble, because that honestly had not occurred to me - that men would get a vasectomy out of concern for their wives.  I generally see discussion of vasectomies in two contexts:  on Catholic message boards, from grieving wives who want more children, but whose husbands refuse to use NFP and constantly threaten to “sneak out and get a vasectomy”—and from entirely secularized men who are just interested in having as much recreational sex as possible and see a vasectomy as a “selling point” to make them more attractive to equally shallow women.

.

So, to those men that Abby describes:  I really am sorry.  My intention was to heap scorn on a culture that has no regard for things of worth - but I ought to know that people don’t always fit neatly into my categories.

Hear, hear.  I’ve been following your writing for years now and am generally prepared for the wit.  You outdid yourself today and my officemates were greeted with a loud chortle.

I feel sorry for the people who just don’t “get it”.

“Ooh, sorry, neutered guys, did that hurt your widdle feelings? THAT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT A MAN.”

Wow, Simcha, that was ballsy.

And awesome.

I don’t know that it would fit easily in with the tone of the article but many studies have found that women who use hormonal forms of birth control are attracted to more effeminate men.

Dear men considering the big V—You do not need to get fixed because you work fine right now. there’s no need to get yourself broken, just learn to appreciate the gift you were given.

Hi Simca,

Totally agree with so many of your comments. My daughter, who is graduting from a physician assistant program in NYC can’t wait to get back to the Midwest hoping to meet some more man- ly men. She say all the men she meets in NY are
of the dreaded Metro-sexual persuasion, more interested in their own looks the anything else. I questioned her statitcs, but she swears it’s true. ( And, ps,my daughter is gourgeous and had a marriage proposal from a fellow student from California- to which she said no)

Thanks Abby and Simcha.  My husband is one of those and I am grateful to him… and so are our adoptive kids.  We believe that every member of our family is blessed because we eventually accepted that God simply didn’t make my body in such a way as to carry healthy children.  As Protestants, our search for God’s will was constrained differently than yours, perhaps, but it was sincere, and we do believe that our search was guided and blessed by God.

I think you are near the mark on the obsession with externals by both men and women in our society, namely, the contraceptive culture as a whole. It is, I think, too narrow to limit the problem to vasectomies. Every time men and women use contraception, they castrate and neuter themselves in the very act which is supposed to be the supreme expression of the self-giving “language of the body,” and its intrinsic orientation to being the loving openness and proximate precondition for the miracle of the creation of a new human life. I think that even “Magisterium Catholics” tend to see this as a matter of “obedience to Catholic teaching,” but often do not appreciate sufficiently the tremendous *violence* that contraception does to relationships, to the family, to society, to masculinity and femininity. The superficiality we observe in people today (which in reality reflects an awful suffocation of human awareness of the mystery of God and the transcendent purpose of life), is in part the result of the nearly universal dependence on contraceptives in our society. Truly, contraception is the huge “pink elephant in the room” when it comes to talking about the malaise of the contemporary secular western world.

Truly ours is a society which is contracepting itself out of existence.  It would seem that with a few decades of sterility on the side of those who disdain life, ‘our side’ would prevail simply by sheer numbers.  After all, we’re actually having children.  But alas, it isn’t enough for these people to simply live their sad, sterile and empty lives and then bow out gracefully.  In lieu of actual flesh and blood progeny of their own, their chief ambition has become the widespread cultural indoctrination of our children at every level, from the classroom to the movie theater to the doctor’s office.  Since they won’t make their own, they’re determined to generate some sort of ‘legacy’ for themselves by capturing the hearts and minds of our young people.  There is an innate human desire to leave something of oneself behind, to somehow stamp your name on time and eternity and say with your life ‘I was here.’  This is one of the perks (though of course not the primary motivator) of parenthood. 

By whatever means one might be castrating their awesome, co-creative and God-given sexual capacity, be it through contraception, castration or homosexual ‘sex’ (which is only and always sterile), the physical denial of sexual fruitfulness can never fully suppress the innate human desire to reproduce oneself, to empty out oneself and bestow life on another. That’s why it will never be sufficient for those who push the anti life agenda to simply live quietly and personally the choices they have made for themselves.  The internal chaos and contradiction of their very existence won’t allow it.

“That is what I like about men. They don’t give a damn. Their neck bulges over the back of their collar? So what? Their ears are hairy, their hands are rough, they snore and make noise and take up lots of space. That is what men are supposed to be like, and if they are going to start frowning into the magnifying mirror and getting all teary when bathing suit season comes around, then we might as well just call it a day.”

That is what you like about men? That has nothing to do with true masculinity. While I dislike the superficiality that has increased in men (as well as women…once upon a time we didn’t “have” to wear multiple outfits a week, shower daily, wear make-up, etc.), I strongly disagree with your evaluation. A man can (and should) care about his appearance insofar as it is in consideration for others. To “not give a damn” is not virtue. To become “teary when bathing suit season comes around” is detestable for both men AND women. It is almost as if saying that vanity is permissable for women, but definitely not in men. If that is the case, is pornography permissable for men, but not for women? Just because one sex has a naturally propensity to a certain sin, doesn’t make it right to blast the other more for falling into them; it is a mortal sin either way.

What I consider to be true masculinity is thinking of others, a strong selflessness and self-discipline that does what is best. He is the leader, the provider of the family—not _necessarily_ the most outgoing, but leads by example. This takes many different forms—a business man will be different than a farmer or construction worker—but virtue is what makes a man truly masculine. Not the hair, fat, or snoring.

This is nothing new w/r/t men.  Fashions come and go for men and women; it’s not the end of civilization and in fact, used to be very much a part of it.  Check it:

“(He) was richly dressed.  His hair was carefully arranged by a French perruquier.  He wore an admirably fitting suit of plain, black, silk velvet.  Ruffles of elaborate embroidery and snowy whiteness adorned his wrists and bosom.  White silk stockings aided in displaying the perfect proportion of his frame.  Large silver buckles were on his shoes.” 

I’ll trade you a shot of Botox and a round of teeth bleaching for anything made of real silk velvet.

Who’s “he”?  Funny you should ask; the quote is fro “Benjamin Franklin: A picture of the struggles of our infant nation, one hundred years ago” (c1876) By John Stevens Cabot Abbott Being that you mention him and all.

I agree with John Janaro: contraception in general has contributed an awful (and it is *awful*) lot to this problem.  I think part of this is because selfishness is at the root of contraception.  And the greater latitude we give selfishness, the more ego-centric we become (as this article has aptly described).

carolyn,
You might be on to something.  I know two stay-at-home-dads who have big career wives.  Both of them spend a lot of time keeping themselves very fit.  They know they are 100% financially dependent on their wives, and although they have great marriages, you can see the work they put in to stay attractive.  It is only a sample size of two, but I think it is meaningful.

The metro-sexual is not something new necessarily, check the meaning of the popular Yankee-Doodle that we all memorized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Doodle

Not bad, Simcha.

Consider putting AlphaGamePlan.Blogspot.com into your Google Reader or whatever you use. These guys are not Catholic, and the Catholic will find much with which to disagree here, but the fact is they have an excellent, totally accurate take on the state of the relationship between the sexes, the best I’ve seen anywhere. Given your article I think you will like this blog if you are willing to be patient with the areas where you disagree.

It does take time to fully understand their view, however, and this is why I recommend just sticking it in your daily blogroll and following the posts as they are spooled out.

Thanks for sticking up for the gritty heart of masculinity.

PS Another good one to read, one that more sensitive Catholics will probably find more palatable, is HookingUpSmart.com.

Agreed. And I’m proud my man is a real man! :)

@ Lisa:

My husband doesn’t care what he looks like, but he tries because he knows that people judge *me* based upon his appearance.  He can’t change the way he feels about his appearance, and I appreciate the effort that he puts into his looks *for my sake*.  There’s definitely virtue in that.

“thinking of others, a strong selflessness and self-discipline that does what is best” - these aren’t men’s strong points… which means that when they DO these things, it is DOUBLE VIRTUOUS.  What do men do best? They protect, they provide, they are strong. 

Of course, the fine print must read:  some men are selfless and still masculine, some men are selfish, but do protect.  These words are not meant to reflect the virtues or vices of any real life man, but are simply used as an example.  Blah blah blah.

My husband has worked with several guys who have had vasectomies. And yes, he knew about it because they would talk about it—-“going in for the big snip” as they put it. Or sometimes he’d hear about it after it was done.

He said, categorically, that every one of those men was…well, “different” afterwards. He said he couldn’t put his finger on it, but there was something off about them to him, something less assertive. It did change their personalities.  I think I’ll be referring to a vasectomy as “Masculinity Reduction Surgery” from now on. Ha!

..

Ironically, my captcha word is “planning43”.  Heh.

I weep for those who see nothing wrong in what the writer of this article is hitting at. I just hope our children will not choose to look like our dogs someday. Such relativism without rationality is absurd and dangerous. ‘A stitch in time saves nine’, goes the old saying. ‘A housefly that refuses to listen follows the corpse to the grave’, goes an African proverb. God help us all.

Makes me love my hardworking, responsible, devoted, loving, paunchy and double-chinned husband even more.  He’s worth more than all the square-jawed self-absorbed heartbreakers I’ve ever known put together (and I’ve known a few, before I met him) - and he doesn’t expect me to dye my hair, starve myself anorexic or get breast implants before he finds me attractive, either.  Loves me just the way I naturally am, as I do him.

I love your calling that particular type of neutered male “the modern castrato.” That is so perfect.  The androgynous hipster thing is really starting to fray my nerves, but I think a reference to the castrati might at least put a pin prick in that steel bunker of stupidity that passes for intellectualism.

a real man also wouldn’t let his fiance humiliate him in public like a punk and still marry her. Men like that were effectively neutered by the feminists long before they had the snip snip

A grand-slam home run! Thank you!

Did you read, also, the Wall Street Journal article a couple of weeks ago that cited studies proving that women who use birth-control pills (thereby not ovulating) tend to be more attracted to “less masculine” men?  And the vicious cycle continues.

AND—(following up on Barb’s theme) scientists are starting to observe odd intersex things happening to the fish in some water supplies because of the constant low-level exposure to synthetic hormones all the Pill-popping women are peeing into the water supplies.  This may not entirely be the men’s fault—there really may be something “in the water…”

Great article!  Right on the mark!  The feminization of the modern male is one of the prime reasons for the collapse of morality and the subsequent collapse of society.  I’m a man and I refuse to apologize for being one.  Ain’t it great?

Contracepting women emit pheromones that repel men. Especially manly men. Thus the desire for more dainty types I suppose. Just a thought.

As an old retired career sojer, husband, and grandfather of 3.5, in love and war, never engage in anything of consequence when shooting only blanks…

Except for all of the perfectly normal guys out there who actually enjoy taking a shower and dressing nicely. Who are then mocked and made fun of and called names for “not being a real man”. There is nothing wrong with being smelly, hairy and messy, but since when did it become a requirement of manhood? Anymore than being soft, sweet smelling and dainty should be a requirement of womanhood? Guys, you are a man by virtue of being male. It doesn’t matter what your grooming habits are, just do what you like and be who you are.

Spot on, sadly.

@Carolyn Hippolyte, Lisa, and Young Mom:  Simcha is employing a literary technique known as hyperbole.  You are permitted to laugh.

Lethergic- I understand the hyperbole, and it can be amusing. I used to talk much the same way Simcha did, until I figured out my husband of 5 years (and the father of our 4 children) was ashamed to admit that he enjoyed taking bubble baths and shopping for clothes. None of the things that Simcha mentions really define maleness.

They started putting fluoride in the water in the 50’s too. Fluoride has a feminizing effect on men as well.

Father of 8 and proud!!!

“Virility isn’t everything. But it’s not nothin’, either.”

Love this line.  We can obviously also apply this to fertility as per countless other discussions of what it means to be a woman.  But since we’re talking about manhood here…

Once again:  love it.

Young Mom:  perhaps in a society where we don’t like talking about our fertility and virility, that’s what’s left?

We are well missing the point in this article. The battle of masculinity takes place on the supernatural order. That is where the warrior inside every man is called to fight. Hence, you cannot see the work a man is doing, that is, if he is doing the work he is supposed to be doing. He will not show you, nor should he, nor is it your business to see it.

Hairy men vs. shaven men? Please. Who cares? This is the regard we have for our warriors, that we reduce their calling to such stupid and trivial things? We do not know who men are or what they are made to do. My advice to men: be clean, dress decently, take care of odors - then turn your attention without fail to the things that really matter.

The fight of the masculine for the Church and for the world is in the battle of prayer, mortification, and the Sacraments. It is grace, and grace alone, that makes a man. So if you want real men, ladies, pray for us. And please stop cajoling us from every direction - that does not help us. No, we don’t need harassment, we need your prayerful support. Thank you.

I mostly agree with this article, but I just have a question…What about the men who are infertile?  Are they less of a man?  Or what about women who can’t have children (through no fault of their own), like me?  Am I less of a woman?

J.L, I think there’s a difference between inborn infertility—it’s a hard blow, to be sure—and infertility one chooses.  There’s a world of difference, in my mind, between a woman who has to struggle with infertility through no fault of her own, and who would love children and is open to life, and a woman who has her tubes tied out of fear or selfishness. Same goes for a man.  Simcha very clearly is talkinga about those men who CHOOSE infertility, not those who must carry it as their cross.

You know why they call it a vas differens? Because when you snip it, it makes a vast difference.

Down with vasectomies!

This explains why every time I go into Macy’s (not frequently) I see men at the makeup counters! Must be true that eternity is fading from everyone’s consciousness; it’s all about the here and now.

Nice to see someone with the guts to print the truth. This is what happens when men stop resisting their passions. Goodnight Vienna.

Simcha - as a true fan of yours, I think the tone of this article was a little harsh. I get what your saying, I see your point, I get the hyperboles, still….just a leetle harsher than it needed to be.

This is the first column of yours that actually really upset me. My husband and I both converted to Catholicism last year, and he had a vasectomy 5 years before our conversion. He chose to do so because our 3rd child was a surprise and we were living at the poverty level, and felt it would be financially irresponsible to have more children. He now deeply regrets the vasectomy, but I can hardly say he’s “not a real man” any more than an infertile woman is less than a real woman. I understand that this article was meant to be “humorous,” but really, saying that men who have had vasectomies aren’t real men is damned insulting to men who made the decision out of a desire to be a financially responsible parent.

I thought about introducing him to your columns, but I think I’ll hold off a while, if not indefinitely. He is definitely a real man and I can’t imagine how hurtful it would be to him to read this.

Holly, I just want to lend support to your view. I did email Simcha, because I was upset by the tone of this (it was funny, but also came out a little…mean, really, just a bit mean and judgemental). We had the same experience. Poverty, post-natal depression, a total lack of social supports due to living in a new town for his work…he did it for me, because we thought it would be the best thing. I was not close to God then, but we did it with good intentions. Though privately he had reservations, we wanted the best for the three children we already had. We too regret the decision and will try to have it reversed. But he made a huge sacrifice, because he was trying to do what he thought was best for me. It does not make him “Not a man” or less masculine. Less fertile, yes, but not less of a man. Certainly not something other than a man, with widdle feelings, as implied by “Not a man”. One of the defining characteristics of a man, for me, is a willingness to put family before themselves (as I try to do as well), and although it was the wrong decision for us, that is all he has EVER tried to do, making him more of a man, not less. He was not doing it to shag around, he was trying to protect me, and he is the greatest man I have ever met. While desirable, sperm does not maketh the man.

Loretta Holly and A, Thanks for speaking up. :)I typically love Simcha, but this article sounds a lot more like the religious people I try to avoid. :(

In scripture it talks about men dressing & acting like men. There is a cd called contraception why not. In it this doctor sites research of apes. When female apes were fertile tje makes did their thing & acted like males, when they started contracepting these females the makes started performing homosexual behaviors w/ other males. When a women is fertile she emits a pheromone that attracts men. with all the pull popping contraceptives women are taking no wonder, they aren’t attracting men. They are also linking that to why women have to dress so trashy to attract a man.  If u r infertile due to no fault of your own it doesn’t make you any less of a man or wo men, but to choose to cut off something natural & god given a sign a of health, why?  Also another thing to consider there had been a rise in infertility, the that have levels of contraceptive hormone pill in our water supply, we are both men & women r drinking it, not to mention the high consumption of soy, high in estrogen. Just some thought

@ Young Mom - thank you, and your last comment hit the nail on the head for me. There’s a fine line between satire or hyperbole and mocking others in an insulting manner, and I think this crossed the line. It wasn’t even bringing up the issue of masculinity or the issue of vasectomy, but the “did that hurt your widdle feelings?” Well, as the wife of someone who desperately regrets his vasectomy and can’t afford to reverse it, it certainly hurt MY “widdle feelings.” Is that really the type of Christian message you want to send, that it’s okay to hurt someone’s widdle feelings in the name of being right? I stayed away from church for 15 years because the other Christians were so judgmental and holier-than-thou. The Catholic church now feels like home, but articles like this are an unfortunate reminder that judgmental, holier-than-thou attitudes can even be found in our own church.

Holly, I feel for you. I am lucky enough to have picked up a cleaning job and another one night job to save up for our reversal, we regret it so much, and I pray that God sees fit to let it work. I’d love more babies. I hope and pray that you will be able to find peace with the issue of your deeply regretted vasectomy, either through being able to reverse it one day, or in some other way.

What does the writer of this column expect ? Children are given androgynous names or names of objects or names without meaning, they are called after vacuous & worthless “slebs”, their parents treat them as sexless freaks, language itself is corrupted - in such a chaos, what else to be expected than that men should be indistinguishable from women even in appearance ? This what comes of refusing to make distinctions, between true and false, good and evil, life and death, wise and foolish, God and man. STM this why there is so much anti-art, & why there is so much institutionalised rottenness in Christianity - “Prosperity Gospel”, anyone ?). These evils are sure to be related. They are outward manifestations of a deep inner rot. No wonder the West is dying.

A and Holly C., I think there’s a bit of a difference, in that you went through this before you converted or got closer to God.  You didn’t know then what you know now, which you obviously regret.  I don’t think anyone, not even Simcha Fisher’s article, is specifically trying to mock men like your husbands.  But the article does point out larger problems when it comes to society:  what happens when, as men and women, we treat our biology as inconvenience and as some sort of “problem” that needs “fixing”?  And for what purpose, therefore?  And if we ignore our biology, on what do we base being masculine and feminine?  Biology isn’t everything, sure, but it ain’t nothin’ either.  So how do we look at the human person in a less fractured manner?  And by the way, those issues don’t just cover surgical sterilization, but also artificial birth control.

While it’s understandable that your husbands did what they did with what they thought were good intentions at the time before your conversions, there’s still the fact that Church teaching is not okay with deliberate sterilization.  Furthermore, having what you thought were good intentions at the time doesn’t make what is wrong right:  the ends don’t justify the means.  But again, you didn’t know what you know now, so you’re not to blame.  I’m glad that you found the Catholic Church, and don’t forget that God is kind and merciful.  And here’s the difference:  you now know why this is something you regret.  I suspect that a lot of the people that Ms. Fisher refers to merely think that the Church is being an old-fashioned busybody and that all of this is “no big deal.”

Part of the problem, certainly in the Church, is that we all tend to shy away from encyclicals like Humanae Vitae, which is actually beautiful, but which everybody tends to characterize as “The Big, Bad, Catholic Church Says ‘No’ To Birth Control!”—i.e. “old fashioned,” and “behind the times,” and so nobody wants to go near it, because we know that it’ll all the likely tell us something that we need to hear, but which we don’t want to hear.  That really helps nobody.  Humanae Vitae is about so much more, though:  it’s about what we mean by, and understand to be, “love,” and the personhood of every human being.  If anything, HV is an encyclical whose time has come.

A and Holly C., I’m sorry that you and your husband can’t afford to reverse the vasectomy.  I will pray for you all.

I think it’s great that Ms. Fisher - and anyone else - is talking about these issues. Our society is certainly messed up in its views of masculinity, femininity and procreation/contraception and I love discussions about that. I just was so relieved when I found this blog several months ago because it was the first time I felt like my views fit in somewhere in the Catholic universe. Among my offline Catholic friends, there seem to be two groups of people, neither of which represents (or fully accepts) me. One group is so pious they never drink, swear or watch R-rated movies, and they are obviously in line with the Church’s teachings on conception - among these people I am an outcast because I live in the world a little more. The other group is totally fine with birth control and abortion, only goes to church on Christmas and Easter and thinks women should be ordained, and I don’t want to agree with them at all. It has been really hard to find Catholic friends who are both reverent and open-minded. I thought this blog was finally a place where I DID find a kindred spirit. Now I feel like I was wrong all along and even the more supposedly open-minded Catholics are still plenty judgmental, and that’s a big disillusionment. Having read Ms. Fisher’s other blog entry about this, apparently she wanted to make this entry even more snarky and doesn’t seem to mind having alienated people at all. It’s deeply disappointing.

One group is so pious they never drink, swear or watch R-rated movies, and they are obviously in line with the Church’s teachings on conception - among these people I am an outcast because I live in the world a little more.

Holly C., why do you need “representation”?  Furthermore, have they purposefully distanced themselves from you?  Remember that each of our conversions take a lifetime and they’re never the same as someone else’s.  We’re all in this together, and it really takes all kinds.  There is a standard for holiness, and it is not to compare yourself to someone else (hard as that is;  Lord knows I sometimes suffer from this, too), but to think with the Church, who is, in the words of Chesterton, “right when I am wrong.”  It’s not easy, but there but for the grace of God go you and I.  Look to the saints.  One thing I love about them, as someone who empathizes very much with not feeling as there are “folks like me,” either Catholic or secular, is that they never tried too hard to “fit in.” ;)

The other group is totally fine with birth control and abortion, only goes to church on Christmas and Easter and thinks women should be ordained, and I don’t want to agree with them at all.

Nor should you.  Those are positions that no-one who considers themselves a Catholic in good standing should agree with.  Furthermore, have they really pondered what the Church has to say about any of those issues, or is it just their “opinion” against that of the Church, and it’s all just “opinion,” whereby one is just as good as the other?  If you were in a discussion with them, saying that you didn’t agree with them and why not, you’d be judging their position as wrong.

It has been really hard to find Catholic friends who are both reverent and open-minded. I thought this blog was finally a place where I DID find a kindred spirit. Now I feel like I was wrong all along and even the more supposedly open-minded Catholics are still plenty judgmental, and that’s a big disillusionment.

Please don’t feel that way.  And furthermore, remember that when Catholics speak of judgment, we speak of judging actions—some are right and some are wrong, and that which is wrong turns people away from God.  What we do not presume to judge is another person’s soul, and whether or not it merits Heaven or Hell.

Also, you might do well to reconsider what you mean by “open-minded.”  Chesterton famously pointed out that he opened his mind and his mouth only just enough to shut them upon something solid.  One doesn’t want to be too open-minded, because ultimately, all of one’s brains will fall out.  Again, as I’ve pointed out, you’re not really in the group whose actions Ms. Fisher criticizes, precisely because you now know what you once did not.

As for feeling included, the thing about the Catholic Church is that it isn’t made of perfect people.  It really is “here comes everybody.”  It means that God excludes no-one.  You and I belong, precisely because everybody else does.  But that’s not the same as saying that God includes any and all actions;  by one’s actions, one can assent to that inclusion or reject it.  Besides, you and your husband, upon entering the Church, have judged your actions prior to your conversion, as something regrettable and wrong.  If you struggle with hurt and pain, which is again understandable, because it likely runs very deep, then this is something you should pray about.  Again, remember that this is hard, and you’ll need God’s help with this.  It’s not a reason to give up on this blog or the Church.

I’m really disappointed in how unkind and mean-spirited this piece is.  Ms. Fisher, I admire your writing and your faith (I am a Christian but not a Catholic) immensely, but you have absolutely no right to insult others like you have in this piece.

WSquared, thank you for your response. I agree with what you are saying, I also agree that Simcha didn’t mean to include everyone…but she did. And while it was just a generalisation, there are individuals like me behind it who know what a silly decision it was, but feel bad enough about it already.

OK…I’ve done a little more thinking about why this bothered me so much. It’s because there is no room for dialogue. If you are just yelling at the other side, it doesn’t really do the work of turning others’ hearts. The article reminds me of the preacher on the corner with a bullhorn yelling about repentance and returning to God. Good point…but no one’s listening because of the way the message is being communicated. And again…this is coming from a big fan.

WSquared, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m sure I will pray about this much more because it obviously brought up some painful feelings. This article really brought up two different concerns for me, both the needlessly inflammatory tone of the article itself, as well as my frustration over my inability to find Catholic friends who are in between the super-pious and Catholic-in-name-only. I am normally a very big fan of all Simcha’s writing, and I think that’s why this one let me down so much. It wasn’t intended to convert anyone or give anyone food for thought, it was just to pat herself (and others in the same category) on the back while shouting down everyone else. It didn’t exactly foster thoughtful discussion, but fortunately a few people such as yourself engaged in that anyway. Thank you.

WSquared, thank you for your prayers.
Holly C., please don’t feel that way. It is disappointing and sad when things like this happen, when we all get in a tangle, but while I believe the Church is perfect (as in right teachings, church with capital C), none of us who make up the church are…don’t feel put off the Church, the Church is still great, despite differences of opinion. Don’t be discouraged.

Every response I’ve tried to write so far has been mean and obnoxious, but I think I’ve reached a point where I can be charitable.

I think this post comes from inexperience.    How can anyone not consider the many wonderful husbands and fathers who came to the misguided choice of vasectomy through the best of intentions?    Their impetus for sterilization comes from the most manly concerns of being able to provide for their families or fears of what another pregnancy would do to the health of their wives.

Also, I read that plastic surgery article when it was first posted on the WSJ website.    Obviously, the couple highlighted was selected due to their sheer ridculousness.    Inside the article it also mentions that many men are choosing cosmetic procedures out of career concerns.    Age discrimination is rampant against white males over 50.  Rampant against the providers in our society.  Men who can afford to do something about it (i.e. the best providers) are sometimes doing so.

I know at least one good Catholic father of 7 in his early 50’s who spent months looking for a new, high paying, well into the six figures position.    ONly after he dyed his hair did he get an offer - he sees a direct link to his more youthful image and landing the job.    I suspect two other good Catholic husbands and fathers I know have “had work done.”    They also are in positions where they not only are paying for their own large families, they are paying through their tax dollars for all those families who get free milk, free healthcare, subsidized housing, etc.    And that doesn’t even begin to count what they give in charitable donations.

Making fun of these good, manly men - even though they were just glossed over in the article - seemed at first vicious to me, but I have told myself that it was just the inexperience speaking.

Eileen!  These are very good points.  I really love the words “sheer ridculousness”.  They made me laugh.  Many things in life are sheerly ridiculous. 

Getting older affects everyone differently…and let’s face it…it is not easy.  I suppose we each have to negotiate those waters as best we can.

Mary

I think a lot of the hurt feelings that arise from this article are really coming from the idea that we can do whatever we want, and still claim the same “label” or “title” as someone who has made other choices, indeed, the opposite of ours.  In fact, it isn’t true.  I have made many choices in my life that have indeed hurt my femininity, hurt my virtue and made me - dare I say it - less of a woman… because those things made me less of the person that God made me to be.  I have fallen short, and so my whole personhood suffers from that. 

Am I a bad Mom for forgetting to bring food for my 11 month old to a barbecue that started two hours after his lunchtime? Yes. That was a bad decision and a better mom and a better person would have remembered.  Does it mean that I’m less of a Catholic for doing so? Maybe, but aren’t these the mistakes that are simply evidence of our humanity? And why are we loathe to recognize our own shortcomings and failings?

For those women who have jumped to the defense of their husbands… it is good of you to defend your husbands, even when they made a wrong decision… but you seem conflicted in whether or not you are defending that decision.  You might find more peace if you acknowledged that your decision as a couple to mutilate your husband in a way that negatively impacts your family and your individual souls was a bad one, and one that causes a rift between you and your creator who gave that gift (because fertility is always a gift). 

So, Simcha brought up a subject that is painful, and she used humor to mock that society holds this up as a good thing.  Look at the big picture - society is constantly telling us that our bodies, our fertility, our ability to bring copious life into this world is bad… it makes women ugly and fact, it ruins the environment and it ties men down and makes them stodgy and boring.  In fact, none of that is true (except for pregnancy making one fat, but its a beautiful, as my husband says - LOL). 

This post hurt your feelings because the fact that your husband cannot father children without another operation is painful.  The fact that he willingly, though misguidedly underwent this operation - and with your support - is also painful.  The fact that there was no one around to tell you both that this was a bad decision is also painful. 

Rather than attacking the author of this blog post, I think that you should consider who caused more pain. The fact that Simcha pointed out the obvious or the fact that you were duped into thinking that you, as a couple, felt that you had no other option than to remove a very intricate and beautiful gift of your marriage.  Think of the message too, that resorting to a vasectomy had to send:  you are not enough of a man to support the children that you can create, so take away the most natural ability of man - to father children.  The message is clear:  you can’t handle it, so curb your power.  Not only is the physical fact demasculating, but the psychological fact is as well.

Simcha’s gift as a writer is to deal with very sensitive topics in a very humorous fashion.  As a person, she would never intentionally cause harm or hurt to any individual.  If hurt was brought up by this article, I think the source of it is in the vasectomy and not in this article.

@ Holly C:
While this post was obviously painful to you - and I’m sorry for that… I really can’t agree with your splitting the Church into the two narrow categories that you have provided.  I’ve been a Catholic for 36 years now, and I have found all of the in between.  It’s sometimes hard for us as Americans (or N. Americans as the case may be) to imagine all the different cultures that embrace Catholicism and their expression of it.  Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a doctoral dissertation on how a native religion in Africa (from his home region) has a Eucharistic sense to it - despite it being a pagan religion.  Think of the way that the Asians embrace the faith and bring their own culture and their own understanding of the human and the divine to the Church.  In fact, having moved from New England to Virginia, I found myself in a completely different social atmosphere within the Church. 
If your experience of the Church has limited you to only two different “kinds” of people, it may be that those are the only “kinds” that you have encountered or are open to.  Further, if you start speaking to the individuals within these categories, you might find some surprising personal stories.  Maybe your group of people who never smoke or never watch “R” rated moves have had a wild past and any hint of soft porn is a temptation to them.  Who are we to judge? Maybe that group that is “Catholic in name-only” know that Christ is found in the Church, but are finding it difficult to understand/abide by Her teachings? Don’t both groups deserve an open mind, and a helping hand?
I wonder here who really is being judgmental?

JH- Wow. Your comment is worse than the article itself.

JH- I think you bring up some very valid points.  We live in a society that sees judgment around every corner.  While Simcha’s statements are strong - they are battling a societal mindset that is stronger.

I guess that’s why Simcha has a blog and I don’t.

JH - I certainly believe there *must* be a ton of Catholics who fall in between the two categories I mentioned, but I haven’t encountered them yet and it’s extraordinarily hard to meet people in my parish. I attend a very old, traditional parish, which I like liturgically very much. However, it’s not friendly and there are very few social activities. As a traditional church there is no talking before or after mass, and in the occasional gatherings that exist, everyone sticks to the people they already know and it’s very cliquish. There are also very few young people, and the social activities that do exist (such as prayer shawls or making rosaries) are 100% attended by women over 70. While I am not denying the value of spending time with the elderly, it does not fulfill the role of needing Catholic friends my own age with young children. I’ve checked out social activities at other parishes, where I met the two types I described. I’m not judging these people - I just can’t find anything in common with them. So far I am not finding the people in the Catholic church very welcoming. I disliked the “instant best friends” nature of the Protestant church I grew up in, but I hate the fact that I’ve attended my parish for 2 years already and so far no one in my family has been able to make a single friend there. I know it’s not just me because I do make friends in other situations.

And actually I completely disagree that what was hurtful was the vasectomy itself, not this article. Yes, our emotions about the vasectomy were already painful, but the article was mocking and unkind. Imagine that the article was instead about the obesity epidemic, and said “oh did that hurt your widdle feelings? Too bad! Maybe it’s because you’re lazy and can’t stop stuffing your face!” Sometimes humor just isn’t funny, especially when it’s at the expense of others.

Holly - you’re right.  I find extremely difficult to meet other Catholics within my parish as well.  To find other Catholic friends, it might be worth it to explore study groups in your diocese, Theology on Tap, online groups and other activities.  Volunteering is a great way to meet people too.  You might also explore some online listserve to find other Catholics interested in the same sort of things that you are.

Holly - there is a difference between obesity and a vasectomy.  Surely you see that.  A vasectomy is an attack on a very very precious gift.  Obesity is oftentimes due to a medical condition or a psychological condition.  I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this point.

A vasectomy is usually done out of serious concern for the well-being of one’s family. It is usually something that the woman wants to have done and wives are usually pleased when husbands participate in the reproductive concerns of the household.

The idea that men who get vasectominies are either effiminate or evil only reveals that National Catholic Register caters to a particularly small segment of a Catholic bubble.

I happen to live in a town where there are a lot of large Catholic families. First, those guys are not “mainlier” than anybody and I happen to know that many of these families depend on public assistance, which I don’t think is fair to the tax payers of Ohio.

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite

Carolyn - I’m sorry.  I missed the study that you cite.  Where is this information from? 
In regards to a small segment of a Catholic bubble - a vasectomy is self-mutilation, and the Church teaches against it.  Not sure where the bubble comes from either. 
In regards to Register readers… there is clearly disagreement even within this post, so I’m not sure where you get the idea that the readers here are in lock step.
Why the hatred for those on public assistance?  Haven’t you read the New Testament where the early Christians held everything in common? In fact, there’s a story about a couple that held something back and the man fell out of a window and died!!  (I think that’s in Acts, but I could be wrong).

Harvey, I greatly appreciated your comment and suggestions about how to meet other Catholics, and I’m going to try some of those ideas. As for the vasectomy vs. obesity, I do understand that they are not the same. However, insulting people who already had vasectomies is a little too late, isn’t it? This article and many of the responses also don’t do much to convince me that Catholics are trying to exemplify the spirit of Christ - I can’t imagine Jesus telling my husband he was less of a man for doing what he thought was necessary to take care of his family; I think He would probably just be very sad about what we did. Meanwhile his supposed followers insult us for having made a tough decision in hard times. One local Catholic “friend” actually said our vasectomy was almost as bad as having an abortion. Where is the forgiveness? There’s only wrong assumptions about why we made this choice. I’ve said all I can and never intended to take up half this comments page, so I’ll end with this one. This article just left a very bad taste in my mouth and so far the comments haven’t done much to take that away.

Well, it’s good to know that when God has a day off, we have Simcha Fisher to tell us who is a man and who is not- in all caps, no less!

A quick look in google revealed this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1328599/Vasectomy-Why-wives-tell-husbands-snip.html

You can keep digging if you like. I have encountered that fact from several read sources as well as personal testimonies. In fact, it is only in very conservative Catholic circles that you find a husband seeking a vasectomy despite his wife’s wishes. In most relationships, the woman takes care of birth control and the man just doesn’t think about it.

Also, I noticed that some readers did disagree but even there is a evidence of that bubble. It’s hard to realize you live in a bubble when you are in it. But the last thing I read, (within the past month), only 2% of Catholics use NFP so these views about vasectomies making one less manly are obviously outside of the main stream. Not that Christians should try to be in the main stream. But again, the men with large families that I have seen are particularly “manly.” I just find this whole discussion, including the original blog post strange.

Yes, that story is in Acts. It was about a community agreeing to live in common; No such agreement has happened among the American tax payers. Americans have at best a tense relationship with those on public assistance. They want to help those down on their luck but they don’t want to support what they perceive as irresponsible life choices.

As for my alleged hatred of those on public assisatance, I think people who oppose gay marriage often get the same silly reaction. It is not hatred to say that it is not fair to the tax payers to bring children into the world and expect others to defray the cost.

Peace,
CKH

Holly - I think its hard when you’ve been personally hurt by something, to not feel every mention of the subject to seem personal.  This post and others on similar topics have to be taken as they are - a blog post.  And I’m sure that it wasn’t mean to condemn any one particular person - but to find a rising, perhaps even cresting tide, that celebrates those who flee from their masculinity or femininity rather than embrace it.  In short, its not about you… its about an entire culture that scorns children and responsibility.

Carolyn - Catholics who try to live by the teachings of the Church usually study and read those things that explain the teachings.  I’m not sure if you’re upset that there is a Catholic culture that isn’t mainstream, or you’re mad that people aren’t following the status quo.  Are you upset that people see fertility and children as a gift rather than a burden? Are you upset that Catholics who follow Humanae Vitae are counter cultural? Have you not encountered people who think that being open to children is a prerequisite for marriage?  I don’t get the reference to gay marriage… you think the state should sanction it? And how does this relate to vasectomies and public assistance? It’s too convoluted.  I hope you have the peace of Christ that you keep passing around.

“You think I’m exaggerating, but explain to me how it is that one in six American men can voluntarily have his manhood made meaningless, and then have any motivation whatsoever to appear to be a man in any other way.”

But its perfectly ok to expect women to take harmful hormones and have their tubes tied because that’s not taking away from their WOMANhood I guess.  Asking men to shoulder some of the reproductive burden is just so harmful to the little boyz.  Yes, I do expect men to shoulder more of the reproductive burden than just spurt spurt!

JH,
You said “you seem conflicted in whether or not you are defending that decision.  You might find more peace if you acknowledged that your decision as a couple to mutilate your husband in a way that negatively impacts your family and your individual souls was a bad one, and one that causes a rift between you and your creator who gave that gift (because fertility is always a gift).”
If you will read the comments, you willl se that I am not conflicted, and I have acknowledged that. I do not defend the decision, I defend the intention behind it, which was one of self-sacrifice, despite the misguided expression of that intention. He did it out of love, and that in no way makes our choice better, regardless of intention it is still 100% wrong. But that decision doesn’t make him not a man.

All of the resons for our pain that you cited are valid, but being mocked on top of those reasons really stung.

Harvey,

My comment about gay marriage was in response to the accusation that I have some kind of hatred for people on public assistance. Just like people who oppose gay marriage take offense at the suggestion that they hate gay people. I take offense that my comments about public assistance signifies a hatred of those people.

I am mostly upset at the common assumption that only Catholics who have not read and studied have difficulty with the church teaching. I am frustrated by how dismissive self-identified faithful Catholics are about people who take into account the real difficulty of raising in the modern world, which is much more expensive and time concunsuming than it used to be.

There are good reasons to want to limit your family size, such as health, time and finances. I am not saying that you need to accept the positions of those people but at least take into account that there is more than evil selfishness goin on.

And it bothers me a great deal that these holy people expect society to pay the bill for this. It bothers me that in the Catholic Church in the phillipines is trying to keep contraception illegal eventhough there is a serious problem with large families in that country living below the poverty line and on public assistance.

These are serious concerns and there is nothing manly about not thinking about these issues.

BTW, I am not married and I wouldn’t take the pill if I was. I don’t even like taking medicine when I am sick. I also would not encourage my husband to get a vasectomny. I simply wish the Church and her defenders would take seriously what the other side is saying instead of mocking them or accusing them of selfishness. This is why only 2% of catholic women take the Church’s teaching on contraception seriously.

CKH

Carolyn - Simcha is pregnant with her 9th child.  You think that she doesn’t know the sacrifices involved with raising a large number of children? I think she knows better than you do.  And the message that I get from her blog, is that there is a lot more joy in it than people realize.  Mother Theresa’s famous line is “it is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”  This holy woman served the poorest of the poor, and yet she said that the poorest country was the United States, not because the people are materially without - as they are in the Philippines like you cite, but because they kill their own children and because they are not open to children because of hardship, inconveniences and lifestyle choices. 
There are legitimate reasons to limit a family size, as has been discussed on this blog and other places… but the methods that you cite are not only forbidden by the church, but are condemned because they shut God out of our lives. 
The Church DOES take these things seriously. If you don’t think so, read Humanae Vitae, look at the good work that Catholics do around the world.  Look at the crisis pregnancy shelters, the NFP classes, the confessionals.
A blog isn’t doctrine - doctrine isn’t funny.  It’s dry and boring.  Real life, lived to the fullest with joy and gratitude for God’s gifts is funny.

Again, with the assumption that only people who have not read or thought about these things might think differently.

I have read Humanae Vitae several times, I volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center and I have read a good deal on NFP.

I have no problem with Ms. Fisher’s nine children but that is hardly an example of controlling family size or a realistic standard for most families. In fact, I think it’s bad PR that every promoter of NFP is someone is a large family. If the Church wants to convince everyone that NFP works, it would be wise to see some women with three children, which is the number of children women around the world, not just in the West, say they want.

CKH

You know, Carolyn, maybe a better questions would be:  Why would God make it so dang easy to have loads of children when people only want three.  When you find the answer to that, then we might actually get somewhere in this discussion.

Historically, most children died very young. Both of my grand mothers lost half of their offsprings. That was common throughout human history and is still common in many parts of the world. So, if you wanted four children, you needed to have eight.

Also, before modern times, children “grew up” faster and were an important part of the family’s economic life. For most of human history, teenagers were helping their family, usually on farms. Parents could expect their children to contribute to the family’s economy within about a decade. Today, parents support their children well into their mid-20’s and they can’t even count on their children to support then in old age, sometghing that was expected previously. This would be another reason to have many children. Many sons meant economic security. That’s simply not the case anymore.

It’s possible that our fertility evolved to reflected circumstances that have changed very suddenly with developments in medicine as well as economics and of course, culture. I happen to think it’s terrible that the young don’t suuport their parents anymore but as long as that is the case, parents, today have to worry about putting a lot of money away for retirement.

CKH

I see… so God didn’t foresee this turn of events - better medicine, lower child mortality, economic independence. Whereas children were an economic necessity, now they are a luxury? Maybe there’s something more fundamental here going on.  Maybe children aren’t about economics, or luxuries, or stability.  Maybe children have nothing or little to do with the parents and actually have a value in their own right.

I am not going to comment on what God forsaw. I don’t pretend to know that. I think the explanation I have given is a plausible one and engages with the facts of history.

I never said children are luxury or that they don’t have value in their own right. But I don’t think it’s accurate to imagine that people were historically more noble because they had more children. The fact that many traditional societies discarded disabled children shows that they weren’t all that interested in their inherent dignities. And the kind of work that children were expected to perform traditionally would get someone arrested today.

Modern families are actually much more child-centered (probably a little too child-centered) than previously. Modern parents are at least as sacrificial; it’s just that they put more into each child and think that each deserves a certain amount of attention.

BTW, I live near a certain famous Catholic family who I shall not name whose eldest daughter says, she did a good deal of the parenting in her home. I also know a woman who comes from a large family who when we were talking about her relationship with her mon said, “well, there’s 10 of us.”

I really don’t know enough large families to say how common these experiences are but modern women for whatever reason think that it is better to give each child a great deal more attention. They think they should have SAT tutors and soccer practices, and ballet classes, and just more one on one time.

BTW, I really am not judging people who have large families. As long as they are paying for it, that’s up to them, but I really think it’s a problem how often such families dismiss concerns about paying for college or saving up for retirement or just the daily grind of driving children to soccer practice.

CKH

Okay, I thought I had said my piece until I came across this:
**Mother Theresa’s famous line is “it is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”  This holy woman served the poorest of the poor, and yet she said that the poorest country was the United States, not because the people are materially without - as they are in the Philippines like you cite, but because they kill their own children and because they are not open to children because of hardship, inconveniences and lifestyle choices. ** Again with comparing abortion to vasectomy! I find that extremely offensive. I have already proven I am open to life - my third child was very very unexpected, our second child was barely a year old, I was very depressed about the pregnancy and my husband was unemployed at the time. I thought about abortion, as I was pro-choice then, but I couldn’t do it and it was in fact the turning point that made me call myself pro-life. However I know for a fact that if my husband hadn’t had his vasectomy, we would be using NFP to avoid conception now, as our finances still could not easily support more children. We do not “live as we wish” and do not try to live up to the materialistic American standards - we have old cars, have only had one vacation in ten years, have no flat-screen tv, etc. Although people should be more open to life than they are in this society, and see children as blessings rather than burdens, it’s naive to think that all people can support 6+ children. There’s a common saying “if you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em” and we tried to follow just that. There have been some times we barely could feed the ones we have - it’s really hard to believe that we should just have more because God will work it out. Our income hasn’t increased in ten years, even though I am now working full-time compared to only my husband working then - if we had more kids it would just mean that the resources were spread even thinner. That just doesn’t seem responsible, sorry.

So, people in the Philippines with a high child mortality rate need birth control because they are poor.  But people had lots of children historically because they had a high child mortality rate.  Isn’t there a problem with this scenario?

Vasectomy is like abortion because in both cases the parents are not open to children.  Of course, a vasectomy does not carry the added burden of killing one’s own child.  Again, its not personal and you’re being overly sensitive. 

Mother Theresa also said, “saying there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers.”  And remember, she took care of people who experienced a poverty that neither you nor I could imagine.

Harvey,
I have mostly been watching this discussion, and the answer to your question, ” You know, Carolyn, maybe a better questions would be:  Why would God make it so dang easy to have loads of children when people only want three. ” is even more stark than Carolyn posted. 

Historically, probably MOST children died before their fifth birthday. This is the reason girls are able to conceive when they are barely out of childhood and barely have had a moment to have interest in sex. For most of human existence bacterial and viral disease coupled with accidents killed millions upon millions of babies and toddlers. Not to mention malnutrition and periodic famine.  Getting adequate calories was a perpetual struggle.  This is a fact. If we did not have such an overwhelming sex drive we would have become extinct in the days before the modern era.

It is hard to understand this living in the United States today, but all you have to do is look at our tastes and drives (tastes for fat, salt and sugar, and overheated sex drives) to see that we evolved in a world where these things were an asset rather than a curse.  We are unsuited for modern life, where fat, salt and sugar are plentiful and our sex drives would provide us with 20 children easily. (Not that children are bad, and some are doing a great job with large families, but it would not work if everyone had large families).

I think moderating the size of your family (not through abortion) is noble.  Some people have large families and it works great.  Others do the same and it does not work so great (my father’s family). Some have small families and it works great.  Others have small families and wish they had more.  I think it is about living with choices.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/masculinity-reduction-surgery/#ixzz1Ny8lWQsW

Simcha here

First, I want to apologize for not contributing to this discussion.  I’ve been extremely busy.

.

In no particular order, this is what’s been on my mind (and kept me up last night):

.

1 - I want to apologize again for hurting those of you that I have hurt.  As I mentioned early on in the comments, it simply didn’t occur to me that men got vasectomies out of concern for their wives. I had what I thought was a good idea for a post, and got carried away.  I know I’ve said publicly several times that we need to be kinder and more considerate with each other, and that is the opposite of what I did here.  I am truly sorry.

.

2 - I also understand that it doesn’t matter if the point I’m making is entirely valid and extremely important—tone is at least as important.  I know how it feels to be in a bad position and then have people heap scorn on you.  This feels especially rotten when these people are supposed to be on your side.  So again, I really am sorry.  I also realize that, if you are on the fence in matters of obedience, it is extremely counterproductive for someone who speaks as a Catholic to be nasty or rude.

.

3 - I do fully understand the feeling of panic and despair that can come when you contemplate the years of fertility ahead of you.  We couldn’t get NFP to work for us for many years, and I thought I would rather die than get pregnant again.  I also had a book proposal rejected by a Catholic publisher because I spoke too severely and honestly about the trials of NFP.  So I’m not exactly a “rah-rah, just trust God” anti-contraception cheerleader.

.

4 - In my post, I wasn’t even actually speaking of the moral implications of a vasectomy. I was approaching it from a more visceral angle.  The Church has her wise and just reasons for wanting to save people from sterilization.  As an aid to this theological truth, I believe that most people have an inborn sense of what is acceptable and what is not.  I still believe that a vasectomy takes away something vital from a man—how could it not?  There are many rigid, misogynistic religious people who reject the idea of vasectomies as unmanly; but there are plenty of freewheeling, relatively liberal people like me who feel the same way:  as I said, not for theological reasons, but just because of what I have observed about men and women in general.

.

5 - I thought I had made it entirely clear in my post that I was talking exclusively about men who chose sterilization, rather than people who suffer the cross of infertility through no fault of their own.  To me it is clear that these are entirely different situations—just as it’s entirely different to choose never to leave one’s comfortable bedroom for years at a time, or to be a prisoner in a cell.  The end result is the same:  you don’t go anywhere.  But a prisoner may keep his dignity, whereas the lazy, spoiled person who chooses not not leave is a sick and pathetic person.  So, to infertile people:  I apologize to you as well. I have always been grateful not to have to carry the cross you bear, and I would never intentionally have added to your pain.  I’m sorry.

.

6 - Several people read carelessly and mischaracterized my depiction of “real men” as gross, belching, rude, smelly cavemen.  I don’t like those guys, either.  There’s nothing admirable about being yucky.  There is, however, a vast middle ground between being a disgusting troglodyte and being a Botoxed, lipo’d pansy, which is what seems to be the trend.  I’ve learned this week that not everyone who gets a vasectomy is a pansy!  But there is too much evidence, culture-wide, for me to be able to say, “Oh, masculinity is perking along just fine—nothing to worry about here.”

.

7 - Although I hurt some people and I regret that, I don’t think this post was entirely a mistake.  The idea that men are a dying breed makes me furious.  I wanted to remind people that the widespread acceptance of voluntary sterilization is a travesty, something that is devastating our culture.  Every once in a while, it’s good to get angry about things that are wrong.

.

8 - I categorically reject the idea that vasectomies are like abortions.  JH, that’s just a horrible thing to say.  I think you’re thinking that abortion makes more sense to people who live in a culture which has wholeheartedly accepted sterilization as a means to consequence-free sex; but it should be obvious to you that Holly is not that kind of person, and I’m horrified that a Catholic would say such a thing.

.

9 - To Carolyn:  I know it’s wonderful fun to criticize someone for shooting her mouth off and saying something stupid.  But at least I had the guts to say what I mean.  You keep saying you don’t judge big families, but the rest of what you say speaks loud and clear.

Harvey,

You are intentionally twisting this around. I never said anything about the child mortality in the phillipines since I know nothing about it. Typically as people have access to better medical care and child mortality rate decreases, they will seek for ways to limit their family size.

I only brought up the phillipines because the bishops there have been fighting to limit access for birth control for everybody, whether they are Catholic or not. The government has been saying that there is a serious problem families living in poverty having many children.

I am not sure what is hard to understand about the fact that more children on a small income means less food for everybody. I am not saying that’s the only problem but it’s a problem.

When I volunteered at the crisis pregnancy, I met a lot of women who simply should not be pregnant. Of course, now that they are pregnant, they should not kill their children but it doesn’t change the fact that they were in a bad situation.

CKH

Harvey - But that’s the thing - this IS personal to a lot of people; no one makes these decisions at random or without a lot of thought, Catholic or otherwise. You may be talking about it in the abstract, but these are important decisions to real couples. I may be sensitive about this issue, but I don’t think that makes my arguments any less valid. Mother Teresa may have said “saying there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers” but she also did not have children of her own to support. Once you have children it is cruel not to consider their well-being when taking into account the decision to have more children. Ballet lessons, trips to Disneyland, tutors, all those things may not ultimately matter in having a good childhood - but having enough to eat is pretty damn important.

Ms. Fisher,

I am not sure what I have said that is a judgement to large familes. I have said exactly what I mean.

First, I don’t care how many children anyone has as long as they are supporting themselves. If the tax payers are not paying the bill, it’s none of my business. I have also been very clear that if the tax payers are paying for it than, tax payers get to comment.

Second, what I do have a problem with is the morally superior attitude that I perceive among such families. I have not read your blog frequently enough to know whether you have such an attitude but I have noticed this attitude. And I want to defend the very good reasons families, especially, women have for wanting to limit their family size. The 2% of Catholics who use NFP seem to think that everybody else is just selfish and evil or whatever. I think they deserve defending.

Third, it is not judgemental to say that historically people had economic reason to have large families and now, that circumstances have changed, their preferences have changed.

Fourth, I was critical of the comments you made about masculinity, but that has nothing to do with the size of your family.

CKH

Holly C., nobody ever said that “trusting God” and “being open to life” necessarily means having 6 children or more.  Do please read Humanae Vitae, paragraph 10.  It supports what you’ve just said.  If you haven’t yet read Humanae Vitae, I really recommend that you do.  Sorry man, but it kind of grinds my gears when stereotypes of what the Church considers “responsible” and “open to life” are just the same old, same old inaccuracy.

Carolyn, our NFP instructors, who got married just after Humanae Vitae came out, only had three children.  And they were using NFP the whole time.  But yes, I do agree that the Church should make it clear that HV does say that small families and large families are okay when promoting NFP.  All family circumstances are different.  Or maybe the Church assumes, rightly or wrongly, that people aren’t too lazy to read the dang encyclicals.

Thank you Simcha, we can all sleep tonight I hope. Now, after being all upset, I have to come in with the other side…there have been many postings where Simcha has said, time and time again, that while she supports NFP and the teachings of the Church, a womans family size is no-ones business but her own and her husbands, and just because she has a large family doesn’t mean that she thinks everyone should, or is morally superior for doing that, and that delaying children is a personal, and private decision.

Why, yes, I have! Thanks.

Wsquared,

I am glad that your NFP instructor only had three children; in my experience that is rare. It’s not about reading the encyclicals. No matter what the encyclical says, people are going to be moved by perception. When the promoters of NFP are frequently parents of more than six children, most people are going to make a quick appointment to the gynecologist.

I don’t think it’s a judgement of anyone’s family choices to say that that is not something most women want.

CKH

Thank you for weighing in, Simcha. I appreciate the thoughtful response, and I’m happy to know that your original intent wasn’t as rude as it came across. I am a writer by profession as well, and I know how hard it can be when your words are misconstrued. Thanks for having the grace to come back and apologize for inadvertently stepping on some toes.

I am sorry if my words implied that I was equivocating vasectomies with abortion - that was never my intention.

That’s right, Simcha! You blast men for their shortcomings and failures! Gee, that’s not an easy shot. Beat those jerks down! Yeah! That’s it. Crush them to the ground. No, they’re not human! They’re men! Big difference. Now let’s see you take on women in your next article, eh? You’ve talked about pansies. What have you got to say about sluts? Don’t hesitate to show them the love of Christ, too! Come on, let’s see what other part of the Body of Christ we can beat to a bloody pulp. Good job, Simcha Fischer.

someone at the register should write a companion piece to this about the correspondent rise in the number of pathetic women we all have to deal with these days as well, e.g., the “cougars” at my gym, future cougars, already-a-little-bit-bitter-college-age-run-arounds, shrews who won’t be silenced, and foul-mouth dirty-joke-telling types.

David, read above
“I had what I thought was a good idea for a post, and got carried away.  I know I’ve said publicly several times that we need to be kinder and more considerate with each other, and that is the opposite of what I did here.  I am truly sorry.”
“I also understand that it doesn’t matter if the point I’m making is entirely valid and extremely important—tone is at least as important.  I know how it feels to be in a bad position and then have people heap scorn on you.  This feels especially rotten when these people are supposed to be on your side.  So again, I really am sorry.  I also realize that, if you are on the fence in matters of obedience, it is extremely counterproductive for someone who speaks as a Catholic to be nasty or rude.”

A - As far as I could tell, Fischer was not apologizing for abusing weak men. Instead, she was apologizing for abusing strong men who chose vasectomies for good reasons. No, Fischer is as weak, brutal, and sadistic as all women are by nature. She hates weak men and I doubt she sees any problem with that at all. After all, that’s what this whole article is about. She will be more than happy, I am sure, to continue crushing men who are already down, for any woman who sees a broken-hearted man feels compelled to destroy him further. Of course, neither Simcha nor any woman can handle their own medicine - if men treated weak women with same constant, deliberate, hateful brutality they show us, they would be totally crushed. That is the irony of the whole thing. Nobody cares of course. Women are wired to destroy weak men, and men are wired to support them in their cause. Just a part of purging the pack I guess. Things like this are one of many reasons I’m not a Christian. Your religion does not fit reality in so many ways. So for example, you Christians say that God gave Eve to Adam as his companion. What kind of companion abandons or punishes her partner when he is weak? I mean, at the moment Adam would have needed Eve the most, she would have destroyed him. That is the kind of friend God gave Adam, and we are meant to believe she was, like, a perfect fit for him. That doesn’t make any sense. Actually, she’s a traitor in waiting - waiting for him to fall short. Now, I thought Christ loved and supported the weak. I didn’t think he was about destroying them for their weakness. Am I mistaken? If I want to follow Christ, should I begin increasing the torments of the weak? If the answer is ‘yes’, I have completely misunderstood Christianity. But I think the answer is ‘no’. Which will make it mystifying, then, when the Christians here inevitably attempt to justify the destruction of weak men in order to avoid any discomfort about the nature of women. No, you see? None of Christianity makes sense. I know that Catholicism makes room for evolutionary theory, but our biological wiring is so strong that even after two thousand years of Christian conditioning we continue to see no problem with the way women treat weak men. The fact is that women are wired this way in order to guarantee that weak men, who are a liability to the group, will leave and eventually die alone. We are even wired to assume such men deserve it, thus short-circuiting our ordinary capacity for empathy, which otherwise might prevent us from acting this way. God wired us to behave barbarically toward the weak and then came to us and said we should behave in the totally opposite way? Getting back to Fischer, she’s just a woman. Structurally speaking, she simply does not have the capacity to care about weak men. She can’t feel empathy for them, she can’t understand them, she can’t feel sorry when she hurts them. All she wants to do is brutalize them. She can’t help that. Nor can we men help but support her in her cause. This means that on the whole, neither men nor women are really capable of acknowledging the full range of male humanity. We just cannot do it. Only a very limited range of male expression and experience matters to us. A weak man is one who cannot express himself on this range. He, therefore, does not matter to us. It would be nice to believe in a God who loves those whom no one else can. Yet it would be strange to believe in a God who made it so that no one else could care about them.

I have no problem with Ms. Fisher’s nine children but that is hardly an example of controlling family size or a realistic standard for most families.

Carolyn, if you’ve read Humanae Vitae several times, you should know that it says nothing about larger families being a “realistic standard” for most families.  It only points out that everyone’s family sizes are different due to different life circumstances.  The Church teaches that both large and small families can be responsible, so long as those decisions are made regarding the objective moral order established by God.  That’s the only “standard” given by Holy Mother Church.  Come on:  we Catholics are supposed to like our both/ands.

For Paul VI states:
With regard to physical, economic, psychological, and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time

Why is it that many people, including those who claim to have read this encyclical, ignore this part of Humanae Vitae?  As for people saying, “if you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em,” among other things, well yeah, exactly:  but what if you can feed ‘em?  So how is that mostly a “small family” issue, and why should a larger family therefore invite any comment about a supposed “lack of responsibility”?

@David:  Yes, I would say you have completely misunderstood christianity.  If you are genuinely interested in learning about what the Church teaches about women, you first need to understand that christians see Eve as a big fat failure.  She’s the woman who did it wrong.  Mary is our model, and is known as “the New Eve”—the one who got it right.  She is the ultimate example of a woman who has endless sympathy, support and care for men, starting with her own Son and extending to all men, including you.

.

I am only too aware that I fall short of imitating Mary.  So for crying out loud, please don’t take a blog post or two and use it as an excuse to say, “See?  All woman are monsters.”  That’s just silly.

It would just be nice if women and, to a somewhat lesser extent, men, were a little more supportive of and encouraging toward guys who are already beaten down. Instead of telling them, “God, you are a worthless pansy! Stay away from me! You’re not even human!” you might say (as a woman), “Wow, sounds like you’re in a rough spot. I’m not sure that I as a woman am in the best place to help you, though, and really, I can’t let you lean on me that much. Do you have any good guy friends? I know that men really need that companionship with other guys, and if you don’t have that, you definitely are going to have a hard time facing life’s challenges. Why don’t we start praying that you’ll find those friends?” You see what I mean? I get that women can’t sit around coddling hurting guys, nor should they. But you can offer a supportive and encouraging word, even as you establish clear boundaries. Really it comes down to us guys helping each other, but women can do a lot to help in that regard.

Uh, Simcha, I am pretty sure that the hatred for women that reeks out of David’s comment is *not* due to your writing/.  I mean, I think you have apologized well and properly for the unintentional offense you have caused.  Do NOT take on the additional demons of other people, too.

And I’m sorry for my earlier harsh words. This area involves a lot of pain and hurt and therefore anger. I have been asking for Christ’s help with this. As a final thought, I will say that any woman who wants to see an increase in the number of strong, healthy, happy men - the best thing she can do, aside from praying for them, is support and encourage male companionship. I really believe that is the key to turning this society around.

Thanks, Corita- excellent advice.  David, I will say a prayer for you, but I believe you are looking for professional-level help from random strangers, which will not give you good results.  Maybe you can contact a your local Catholic Charities to see if someone can counsel you in your struggle?  Praying is always helpful, but God gives us experts here on earth for help with the nuts and bolts.

You’re probably right, Simcha, but I think my comments re: women and men are still pertinent.

Also, David, the kinds of things you quote above as being said by women are those of abusive people, not women just acting out some biological/evolutionary urge.  It’s one thing to feel and express dismay at what you *perceive* as weakness in others; entirely different are words and actions that crush, ridicule, and in other ways display contempt and rejection.  I am not talking about Simcha here, by the way.  I am talking about women and men in relationships.  It sounds like you have been on close terms with more than one abuser.  So, I want to encourage you to think about Simcha’s suggestion to get assistance in untangling the valid observations of women and men (evolutionarily, theologically, and otherwise) from the damage inflicted by broken and hurtful people. 

As someone who is struggling with the aftereffects of abuse myself, I will keep your needs and intentions—whatever they may be—in prayer.

Hi, Simcha:

I certainly don’t agree with your picture of men.  I have found that men are good creatures and can be humble too.  Unfortunately, we women have led the way on trying to look good.  We have men believing that that and money will make us all happy.  What a shallow way of life.

Interesting and entertaining read. However, this piece reads like as if it were two different articles awkwardly fused together. Everything except for the last couple paragraphs talks about how men are becoming increasingly obsessed with vanity and then out of the middle-of-nowhere a commentary on vasectomies emerges with little connection to the previous part of the article.

I’m not saying I disagree—maybe there is a connection between men wanting Botox and getting vasectomies—but there’s just no convincing connection between the two ideas given in the author’s writing. As a reader, I’m just left wanting for a convincing and well thought out connection between the emasculation of men and vasectomies. Sure, I can be creative and come up with a couple, but I don’t believe that it’s the reader’s job to try and assemble the writer’s thoughts. But I digress…

Putting the technical thoughts pertaining to the writing aside, in my simple cynical worldview, the main reason things have changed in the past 60 years has to do with getting a mate. Just another unscientific idea to complement the author’s, before the 1950s women found rugged men more attractive so men strove to be more rugged in an effort that they could eventually have a mate or two. Since the 1950s, we’ve become a much more affluent society, and so, we’ve become more vain causing women to demand a better looking mate. So, naturally, men just pay to change their appearance to be able to match their target market. As for vasectomies, that’s just an upfront cost to avoid the recurring costs of other birth control methods that happen to fit in the modern man’s worldview.

“These days there’s dudes gettin’ facials
Manicured, waxed and botoxed
With deep spray-on tans and creamy lotiony hands
You can’t grip a tackle box

Yeah, with all of these men linin’ up to get neutered
It’s hip now to be feminized
But I don’t highlight my hair, I’ve still got a pair
Yeah honey, I’m still a guy”

Thus the inspiration behind this piece ;-)

Wow! A Yiddisha Catholic. Simcha, I love you.

“Gold diggers have always been with us. Therefore, that can’t be the reason why gold diggers did not expect attractiveness on top money and are now asking for it.
As for the plastic surgery, I think those cases are rare and extreme. The more common trend is that men are more mindful of their appearances than they use to be. I can only imagine that they are because women are also more mindful.”

Actually, the reason gold diggers didn’t require men to have plastic surgery before (back when men were men), is because men were men and the very idea of a man becoming pretty was absolutely repulsive. Today, it’s all about being pretty. The most common adjective to describe a male, is “cute”. If I was a guy, I would find that demeaning.

Also, women have never not cared about there appearance. Take the history of the corset. That was women, not men. Women spent hours dressing…not men. If anything, women have become less worried about there appearance. Just something to think on.

elizabeth- “men were men and the very idea of a man becoming pretty was repulsive”
What are you talking about? Men used to wear elaborate wigs, makeup and powder on their faces, silk slipper and leggings… etc. Not saying it’s my thing, but they certainly seemed into it, since it was the prevailing fashion and all. There have always been fashion trends, and as technology has gotten more advanced so have some of those beauty options. Certainly no one is forced to partake in them though.

@David: well, the responses you have recieved so far have been so much better than any I could give. I just couldn’t think what to say. But maybe your views of women have been shaped by your previous experiences and interactions, in which case, I can see how you would think as you do. If that is so, I’m sad for your experience, I hope you can have faith that not all women are like that, and I will pray for you to get the support, companionship and caring that you need, including healing to be able to feel open to the great things that marriage offers. Women and men are good together, and I am sad for your pain. I hope you get to have some great experiences, and have the joy of this in your life at some stage.

@Pagan (way up the page): no, the snip isn’t worse than all the things women do. They are all unhelpful.

I hate to jump in here this late in the game-but what the heck. I had a vasectomy oh somewheres around 35 years ago-why-because my wife and I were told if she get pregnant agai, (After two children), it would probably kill her. We have been married going on 40 years. I did this knowing what it meant, but my wifes life meant more to me than that. I do not feel I have lost any masculinity as the ability to produce a child is not what it is all about. Anyone who actually believes this thinks like a sheep. BTW Vasectomies are reversible

Simcha, Corita, A - Thank you. I am keeping your words in mind.

Head’s up folks! A thoughtful rebuttal:

http://southernbelleletters.com/?p=1129

Heather - I think its a cheap trick to take a popular blog and try to steer the readership to your own blog.

The blog isn’t mine, but it does belong to a friend of mine. My friend’s motivation for writing a rebuttal wasn’t for increased readership to her own journal. She doesn’t publish provocative opinions in order to gain attention. I shared my friend’s link in response to Simcha’s because I think the readers of the Register deserve access to an alternative opinion. The audience may not agree and it’s entirely possible that they or their husbands, sons, brothers, uncles or fathers might be offended by the stance she chose. No cheap tricks here, Harvey. Just free speech.

Technically, a man is not less of a man on account of a vasectomy. Surgery can’t change gender identity; nor can any modes of behavior that are less traditionally associated with being male.  A person’s sexuality is rooted in his or her being, and not outwardly defined by some normative standard.

....especially since most standards that people define as somehow “natural” are actually culturally determined.  When one looks at what was regarded as “naturally” feminine, 200 years ago, one is reminded not to define gender too narrowly.  Because according to mainstream thinkers circa 1800, I am less of a woman on account of my job, my trousers, my education, my reason, and my opinions. 

But actually I am not less of a woman. Nor is a man less of a man because he gets plastic surgery.  He may be frivolous and vain, but there is nothing specifically “feminine” about those weaknesses. As the history of fashion clearly shows.

Simcha, usually I love your articles, but I think this one is reflecting a common error in gender theory, that I am ALWAYS running into…in both left-wing and right-wing circles, incidentally.

EXCELLENT point Rebecca! By equating one’s sex with physical appearance and fertile capabilities (aka what’s between your legs). Simcha (and all the supportive commenters here)are of the opinion that a plastic surgery is capable of changing one’s sex. Which is odd, since this is a Catholic Blog and that is not a Catholic perspective. Does anyone really have the right to judge/determine how “male” or “female” someone else is based on their physical appearance and preferences, and the status of their reproductive organs?

Rebecca: What do you believe defines masculinity and femininity? Or do you believe there is nothing essential to either, so that we can rewrite them without doing any real harm to society? I’m curious to know your perspective on this matter.
As a Catholic, I believe there is something inscribed in each of our souls that makes us masculine at heart or feminine at heart. If I was not a Catholic, though, I would still believe there is a sexual bottom line to each of us, a sort of biological hardwiring that determines, to some extent (key phrase), our modes of thought, goals, inclinations, interests, behavior, and so forth. That I came into life a male, for example, determined the way my brain organized itself while I was still in the womb - it is different from a woman’s brain in significant ways. I think it’s unwise for us as a society to ignore these differences - in fact I just don’t think we’ll get away with it; nature will re-assert itself eventually - because, well, we are different… very different, in fact!

@David:  thank you, that expresses my own questions about this discussion very well.

.

If we were pure spirits, we could perhaps define masculinity and femininity solely by the way we think and behave and by “who we are deep down” (not quoting anyone in particular, just trying to summarize what some people seem to be expressing), and it really wouldn’t matter what we did with our reproductive organs.  But we are hybrid creatures with bodies.  Bodies are incredibly important, and inseparable from our souls.  The Incarnation makes this very clear. This is why I just can’t get myself to believe that ones sexual identity is not diminished by willful, elective sterilization.

I was done at 3 children and planning on getting my tubes tied. We planned the first 2, but the third was a surprise. Each pregnancy was getting more dangerous. My husband didn’t wish to see me got through one more surgery and stepped in and got a vasectomy. I’m absolutely certain that he is a real man and there was no need for this !@#$% post.

Bottom line after all the whining - Simcha is right. If the men who lived up to and before 1950 were alive today, they’d all be laughing at some of the men of today - and how they have been neutralized. The really good ones though would stop laughing at some point to pray to God for their mixed-up souls.

God is a Holy Spirit, He is not of the flesh. So, by definition, He is different tham us in the flesh. The flesh was once good until the sins of Adam & Eve. Because of sin, the flesh always dies.

I believe that since God is a Spirit He is purely Holy. His Beauty is spread among the many saints over the ages. To Mother Teresa and John Paul as we would know them in our time. People who strived for goodness and holiness all their lives.

Vasectomies and getting tubes tied are sins of the flesh. They are designed to keep God out of a marriage - to control the possibility that He give life. When we allow or insist that our spouses do these things for this reason, are we not being selfish?. We are risking their souls before God at their judgment. Do we not love our spouses in the flesh as well as the spirit? Are we concerned about the souls of our spouses after they pass away when they will be before Jesus for judgement?

It does not matter if we believe that these practices are acceptable - Church teaching says they are intrinscally evil and when we boldly ignore these teachings and replace them with our opinions, we have already sealed our fate, and of those we love. Unless we are able to overcome our pride and repent.

I beg all who believe that birth control is not a sin to reconsider. When we go to the next world, we do so alone. And, we go to a Creator who is completely Good but also ready to apply Justice to those to proud to repent. How do we explain away these sins when Our Lord holds all of the truths of our hearts and intentions in His Hand? There is no escape other than to change our human ways on earth.

God Bless.

to rc- give me a break-when man and women are married-they become as one. Period. So you are telling me, if a women is told another child would kill her, that she could not survive another pregnancy, then would a tubal make sense. I think it would, for safety. Oops I forgot-Women are suppose to be subserviant to men.
BTW the Men prior to 1950? What does that have to do with anything?

Never done all that. Have what I have and after 70 years just wonder
how the body does what it does. Add weight just by thinking of eating. Some foods become difficult to eat or cause some medical condition down the line. Inheritance is great in its way. What aggrevated your parents seem to get to aggrevate oneself about the same time frame. Survived sports, war, accidents and other things and still standing, thank you. My only regret is being a late bloomer has a shorter run than being an early blossomer. But in reality all this so called thinking is sort of wasted energy considering eternity.

@ thomas - I’m saying that man or woman, one should be smart enough to follow church teaching on these matters - instead of following ones own prideful emotions or political opinions. The Church helps and works with women in the situation you describe. I’m talking about folks who call themselves Catholic or religious and then openly ignore/criticize church teaching on birth control thinking there are no spiritual consequences - that somehow God wont have a problem with it even if they are unrepentent.

Secondly, not talking about anyone being subservient to anyone, as these actions or sins of men or women are equally wrong in the eyes of God - vasectomies or getting onces tubes tied, it doesnt matter and is not a gender thing.

Long list of comments! Thanks for your courageous words. Abortion will be the undoing of our nation, but its roots lies in birth control and pornography, which provide the mental framework and emotional stage for unwanted kids. Birth control upsets the balance of power between the sexes. Women always had power over men through their beauty, but it was always tempered by the strength of men and the threat of pregnancy. Now the castrated are at the beck and call of woman, and women have no one to help them refrain from pride and spite. We are in big trouble.

gosh, I wish my mom was still alive and could read your article. Would have made her laugh until she cried. Mom saw how virile men really acted. Not the semi castrated “males” around now.

See, back in the 50s, the virile man she married insisted on as many children as she could carry. Six years and four children and 2 miscarriages later, poor ol’ mom was worn out. Seems like her husband demanded his stud rights less than a day or two after each child birth and miscarriage. Virile men do not do without when even a semi conscious wife is around.

Also, virile men believe they deserve pretty women. And 6 pregnancies in 6 years can make a woman look less than attractive. So off went her husband to find another woman worthy of his virile seed. Divorce wasn’t as easy to get back in those more christian times. But old fashion desertion remained an option for an unsatisfied virile man—leaving a sick woman to raise 4 kids under the age of 7. Virility can be a heavy burden and man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. Spread that seed!

Don’t you miss the good days when men were men and women were afraid?

Give me a responsible man any day. Even if he brushes his hair. As long as he loves his wife and kids more than his penis.

@Mike and other deep thinkers:  Right, because there are only two alternatives: be a raping, slavering, cheating brute, or get a vasectomy.  There are no decent men who, out of love for their wives and families, abstain from sex until both spouses decide they’re ready for another baby.  Boy, is my face red!  Someone go tell my husband he doesn’t even exist.

“Boy, is my face red!  Someone go tell my husband he doesn’t even exist.”

Maybe you can tell me why this sperm donor (the man who knocked up my mom 6 times in 6 years) existed? I thought you liked virile macho men. This is how virile macho men who love their penis more than anything else act toward their families. You said you liked the proud strutting peacocks. Be glad you’re not married to one. 

Perhaps men who love their wives and kids more than their penis should not be called castrated males. Or made fun of by some careless women. omething to think about ...

There’s a difference between virile and macho.  I reject the idea that the only way to be responsible and loving is to be sterilized. I understand that some men do it out of love (and have apologized at least twice already for lumping in the horny jerks with the well-intentioned guys in my original post), but I still cannot accept the idea that a vasectomy has no effect on one’s manhood.  Sorry.

Simcha,

I think you’re misreading Mike. He doesn’t want disgusting men to stop abusing women.  He just wants there to be no consequences, i.e. children.  If he wanted men to stop raping women, he’d want perverts castrated.  With a vasectomy, they can do what they want without the burden of having children to show for it.

Harvey, I know you’re trying to back me up here, but Mike is saying that men sometimes have good reasons for not wanting any more children.  There’s nothing wrong with that—your own husband may say it some day, and be perfectly right.  He’s even saying that it’s a kind of sacrifice for a man to have a vasectomy, and I can see that—I’m sure no man WANTS to have that procedure.  So I don’t think it’s fair to say that “He just wants there to be no consequences.”

.

Where I cannot agree with Mike is his implication, whether he intended it or not, that any man who chooses NOT to have a vasectomy is, by definition, a selfish, unloving !@#$% who loves his penis more than his wife.

You’re right.

I just think that he’s being so irrational that it doesn’t warrant your intelligence to respond.  For instance, why is he asking *you* why a man like his father, someone he obviously has no respect or affection for, exists? You’re very kind to be responding to his vitriol with such thought and charity.

“Seems like her husband demanded his stud rights less than a day or two after each child birth and miscarriage.”  This was where I stopped thinking he had a real point.  A vasectomy wouldn’t have changed his “appetite”, just the consequences.

If this is the type of mocking writing proud Catholics produce, and other proud Catholics applaud I think that in 40 years we’ll have the church we deserve….  It’s pretty difficult to reach out to convert protestant brothers and sisters in the environment of this type of, uh, “humor.”

@Cheryl - I’ve been reading these responses for a few days now. Very interesting view into Catholicism and a realization how out of touch with reality the belief system is. Women’s power is in their beauty? Blech!

@Cheryl - a generation of contracepting Catholics has given us a weakened Church. Maybe it is time to mock it as the nonsense it is.

@Emily - Women’s beauty does not give them power?

A generation of the Catholic Church failing to serve their congregation has weakened the Catholic Church.

I love the Catholic Church and Church teachings.  It is, indeed, in touch with reality. I love a sense of humor, too!  I just can’t applaud verbally slapping each other around.  Charity in truth is the better path.

I’m with you Cheryl. I think that the topics that are addressed on NCR, albeit in a radical manner at times, are insightful and challenge us all to grow in our authenticity as Catholics. That being said, the name calling and emotional outbursts that follow some articles is incredibly revealing as to how far we are on the path to communion with Christ in Truth. The temptation to think we see more clearly than others results in all-or-nothing thinking and the loss of important points to ponder.
FYI, on this topic of masculinity, a recent study divided men into 2 groups; one group was asked to braid hair and the other group, rope. After the completion of the braiding task each man was invited to choose between 2 second tasks: an aggressive task (boxing gloves and a punching bag, as I recall) and a neutral task (can’t recall). Significantly more men who were asked to braid hair chose the aggressive task while the others tended toward the neutral task.
Could God have created us all to need a gender identity? If so, why are we seduced by the political rhetoric and agendas around gender issues rather than seeking the answer to true freedom (and a clear, holy identity) for both men and women from our Father?
 
And doesn’t wisdom remind us that the more we know, the more we know we don’t know!?!
Simcha’s thoughts were provocative and give me reason to ponder.

@ Teresa, could you please supply the link to that study? I’d be really interested to read it (I’m a bit of a geek like that :)

@Harvey and Mike:  so right, the snip doesn’t change ‘appetites’. I can see that you have had it really rough Mike, but while men who are fertile can be asses, so can men who aren’t for natural or surgical reasons, likewise, men can take the vasectomy option out of good or bad intentions.

A: The reference you requested for the research on masculinity is
J. K. Bosson, J. A. Vandello. Precarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2011; 20 (2): 82 DOI: 10.1177/0963721411402669
The actual research may have to be purchased but if you place that in google you can read several related articles about the content and recent findings by Bosson.
I’ve always wondered what a geek is. I guess its someone who played that telephone game enough times to want to “get it from the horses mouth” before betting any money on it!

Great! Thanks Teresa. Haha, you are right about what geek means. It also means that I find joy in all the little academic details and extra info:) Thanks a lot:)