ITV

This sounds okay at first, since one might think "How can you go wrong attacking Kim Kardashian?" But the reality is that this is simply an ugly woman who is envious of a beautiful one. And in order to attack the person towards whom she is envious, she is willing to pull down the entire concept of female beauty. Envy is an ugly thing, and this woman should beware since she doesn't have much beauty to spare:



C.S. Lewis in "That Hideous Strength" pointed out back in the forties how wrong and destructive that sort of thinking is. He reminded us that female beauty is actually the mainspring that drives the wheels of society. When an ugly woman criticizes society for admiring a beautiful woman, it is just like a stupid person criticizing society for admiring smart people, or a poor man criticizing society for admiring rich men.

Well, that's hardly objective is it, Maximilian?

Her grievances were legitimate until you saw what she looked like.

She's not criticising society for admiring someone's beauty.

I also wouldn't describe her as "ugly" (as if that were a legitimate criticism of a person anyway). Plain, perhaps.

Kim Kardashian is someone I had heard of, but not seen, since I don't watch tv or read newspapers, but what I had gleaned is that she is not an ideal role model. I didn't need to know how much more beautiful she is than I to understand that much!

Still, my opinion doesn't count, because I vary between plain and ugly, and only occasionally look reasonable!

Actually, here's a possibly relevant topic: Pretty vs Hot

Why is my view less objective than this woman's?

No, her grievances were not legitimate. I pointed out that she was attempting to dismantle an element of society which C.S. Lewis had described as the mainspring of human activity.

Moreover, the fact that she is ugly is completely relevant to the fact that she is criticizing another woman for being beautiful. It's just like a stupid person complaining when society praises someone else for being smart. She wouldn't be so envious if she were not so ugly.

She goes beyond plain. And even if she were only "plain" as opposed to "ugly," then as I pointed out in my prior post, she should make special efforts to avoid vices like envy that would push her over the line.

And yes, of course it's a legitimate description of a person. If some people can be described as "beautiful," then necessarily some others must be ugly. If some people can legitimately be described as "fast," then others must be "slow." This silly idea that some children are "smart" but no children are "stupid" has crippled the educational system.

Perhaps it was envy that caused you to fail to notice that this woman is not criticizing Kim Kardashian for her morals, but only for the fact that she is admired as a beautiful woman. In this woman's eyes Kim Kardashian's only failure as a "role model" is that she is admired for being beautiful. There's not the slightest reference to her morals.

To attribute her (and my) comments to envy is rash judgement, Max.

She isn't criticising Kim for being beautiful.

She rightly observes:

Are immodest photos the "mainspring of human activity"?

She is not "so" ugly anyway.

And, furthermore, God created her that way. You're finding fault with His handiwork!

I don't know about Kim, but a lot of celebrity beauty is man-made these days.

It's in the eye of the beholder, and is irrelevant.

St Pius V is, in my view, not the most handsome of popes, but so what? He's in Heaven.

As a scantily clad beautiful woman.

And, it was not envy on my part, I can assure you.

Bishop Williamson has pointed out before the futility of thinking you can discuss abstract issues with women without them taking it personally. What cannot be done need not be attempted. Sorry if you were offended.

In my opinion the Dr. isn't ugly just plain,and I don't think she is critising the bimbo because she is beautiful but because she is a BIMBO,and I am being nice here, this is an imoral woman who flaunts her body and her promiscuity as an example for the world to see. How many of the younger generation has she and her kind led astray?

Agreed Clare. Oh Maxim, please, that is ridiculous to accuse Clare of such a thing, or even the author. Goodness gracious me. I took the article (and had to look up who this Kim is - what a disaster, that poor soul) as a fight against what secular and even Trads hold up in the world today as being so important - image which includes all that is tied with it.

This "image" as produced, promoted and glorified by the Hollywood Jews and the plastic society in which we live. It makes money and robs souls.

I bet it is hard to find any females in LA that are not plasticised in some way. Of course men are not helping at all while they seek this "perfection" in females that only drives them to act more on their natural born vanity. It is a vicious cycle.

This is not to say that keeping one's appearance well maintained with some temporary helps is bad, of course that is fine and recommended especially if someone is married or wanting to be. But if one chooses not to bother, that's fine too, because our lives should not be centered on "looks", which are passing over time anyway.

Females such as Kim give a bad name to truly beautiful women who's beauty comes from the inside first which shows forth in externals, which should be admired before externals. This world where "image" is king objectified through people - men and women - who are completely immoral is the work of the devil. This is not to say that Kim is a bad person inside but her externals indicate that morality is amiss to put it mildly.

The truth for me is, I no longer see any beauty at all when I see the immorality displayed with the likes of poor Kim Kaddashian. I see ugliness...ugliness of sin. I feel pity for her and all the rest who are lost. Lost in the abyss of our Godless world today. And those who are not so attractive, when their souls are alive and beautiful through their charity and morality, they look so beautiful to me...I really mean that. Their light shines through and that is Godliness and that is real beauty.

Also, no one can give themselves credit for their looks - God painted all of us, and some He added more paint perhaps. To say people are "ugly" is just plain mean, I think so. I really think that is not kindhearted. To say, "not so good looking" would be ok because we have to be realistic.

However, as Clare stated, God created all of us, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Looks won't get you to heaven either, and in fact, one who is "good looking" will struggle with vanity and find it harder in those ways than someone who is perhaps more of the gentler persuasion. So it is not something to aspire to be for that reason either, in my opinion.

I think the article was aimed at not falling into the trap of looks, fame, immorality being the "virtues" to aspire to have to be "successful and popular". It is true that we are bombarded with immorality. Just yesterday I was speaking for a long time with one of my first business suppliers about this very thing. Turns out he is a Catholic and is 56 years old. He was fascinated to hear me say that there is nothing Catholic left in this world...that everywhere you go is a constant assault on our eyes and ears, and he agreed totally. It was very refreshing.

Even with Kim, we must see God in her too because He created her but she certainly is a poor suffering creature with those of her ilk that deserve no place in society as role models for anyone, or depicting image, celebrity status etc, as the gauge of success etc, as I see it from a Catholic perspective.

To make the situation with Kim Kardisian even more tragic is that she was trained to be this way by her mother,the one person who SHOULD HAVE trained her not to be this way. If Hollywood could just be shut down then the younger generation would have a better chance of seeing the truth,hopefully.

:lol:

If I responded "personally" it was because you attributed my view to envy. That is kind of personal.

However, I was not actually offended.

That is a false statement. Here are some of the things you said in response to my first post which said nothing about you and which was not directed towards you in any way:

So now that we've established that the reason you gave for responding personally cannot be the true one, since I had said nothing to you at the time that you brought up the issue of your own looks, perhaps you can tell us what is the actual reason that you responded personally?

That was the true reason I responded personally to the charge of envy.

I brought up the issue of my own looks pre-emptively, and for full disclosure purposes, because you seemed to think the appearance of a woman with a view on this issue is relevant, so as to give you the chance to dismiss my view as well! But, I know that envy has nothing to do with my opinion. And Kim K's beauty has nothing to do with it either.

On looking back, I notice that, where I wrote:

You responded:

But I never said it wasn't a legitimate description. I said it was not a legitimate criticism.

This is subjectivism. This is precisely the kind of subjectivism that Bishop Williamson has spent years fighting against. Beauty is an objective reality. Some things are beautiful and other things are ugly. Similarly, some women are beautiful and some women are ugly.

Being attractive to men is a primary obligation of women. This is an essential element necessary for the continuance of the human race.

Have you noticed that the continuance of the human race is in dire jeopardy right now because women have decided they no longer have an obligation to be attractive to men? Has the news reached you yet that the populations of all the developed cultures of the world are entering death spirals because women refuse to acknowledge their primary obligations?

And who is responsible for the impending doom of western civilization? This headmistress posits that Kim Kardashian and the readers of "Zoo" magazine are the responsible parties. I respond that this woman is "Exhibit A." She is the one destroying western civilization, not Kim Kardashian.

Criticizing "lad" culture is like shooting fish in a barrel. There is nothing easier or cheaper than criticizing Kim Kardashian. You don't get any bonus points for criticizing one of the most tawdry figures in popular culture. What will be the subject of her next speech, "Outlining the flaws in Snooki's personal morality"?

But for the headmistress of an elite, private girls school to criticize Kim Kardashian for being judged attractive to men is pharisitical and hypocritical. She sees the speck in the eyes of "lad culture" but doesn't see the log in her own. Just like the pharisees criticized the sins of the poor but didn't see that their own sins were actually much worse, this woman scores cheap and easy points criticizing "lad culture," which has no relevance to the girls at her elite school, but fails to criticize her own culture which she is promoting which is very much more unnatural and offensive to God.

This woman is taking the best and brightest and richest young girls in England and teaching them an unnatural and soulless philosophy. This whole school full of girls -- if statistics are any guide to go by -- won't produce as many children as Mrs. Duggar. These girls will live lives of complete self-absorption wrapped in a mantle of do-gooderism, trying to save the rainforests and the rights of sodomites, while failing in their fundamental human obligations. It is the morality of the upper classes of England that is sickening much more than the pathetic failures of those at the bottom.

What Jesus abhorred more than anything else was when the very elite members of society criticize the sins of the proletariat while absolving themselves of their own much worse sins. That is precisely the content of the headmistress' speech.

Aren't all people (at least those in a state of grace, which isn't dependent on looks) beautiful to God? Isn't that the objective standard?

Yet, you say some women are objectively ugly. God does not demand the impossible.

But you've reminded me of a song!

[dohtml]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YQTveD0xCsQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/dohtml]

No it isn't. Ugly fertile people marry and have children.

No. It is in jeopardy because women, beautiful and ugly, have become less willing to have many children.

She didn't do that though. She criticised the "premature sexualisation of young people, and the objectification of women which accompanies this."

No, you're making a fundamental category error. You are confusing apples and oranges. You're mixing up natural and supernatural realities. This kind of confusion does a great deal of damage.

Lazarus the beggar did not become rich on earth although he was brought to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man stayed rich and the poor man stayed poor on earth. The supernatural reality regarding which one was loved by God did not alter their bank accounts.

Elite secular schools that are fundamentally anti-God and pro-evolution are full of brilliant people. These people are smart whether or not God loves them. There are many home-schooled traditional Catholic children that will never be admitted to Oxford or Harvard. The fact that God loves them doesn't give them perfect scores on their entrance exams.

Men have an obligation to support their families. Some men are much smarter and richer than other men. But even the less well-endowed men can still fulfill their obligations. God expects some men to become important figures in society and other men to be coal miners.

Everyone can fulfill the obligations of their state in life to the best of their abilities, IF they have a willing spirit. But women who deny that they should be attractive to men lack the understanding and the heart and the will to fulfill their primary obligations to the best nature has allowed them.

You live in a dying society, and unfortunately, it seems that you share many of the beliefs and the values that have led to its moribund condition. Like everyone in your generation, you don't grasp the basic realities of human nature.

That is exactly what C.S. Lewis was pointing out way back in the forties before others had become aware of the problem. Jane Studdock's contraceptive practices were the symptom of her flawed understanding of her own nature and the nature of her relationship to men. They were the result, not the cause, of her failure to be fruitful.

You might enjoy "That Hideous Strength," although I know the science fiction genre does not appeal to everyone.

Here is what she said:

Her theory is that Kim Kardashian's curves are responsible for the descent of Western civilisation. I disagree with her and agree with C.S. Lewis who more than 60 years ago diagnosed the problem very differently. He said that it was modern society's failure to grasp basic human nature which would lead to our demise. This headmistress is a representative of unnatural system which is doing much more damage to western civilization than Kim Kardashian's curves.

Great and hilarious song (although there are less offensive video versions available on Youtube). But bad advice.

It is true that I have found some things and objects to be beautiful while others to be ugly, but if beauty existed as an objective reality within objects external to our perceptions - let's say, 'The Arnolfini Portait' by Jan van Eyck or Kim Kardashian - then surely we would all respond with the same general approbation? I know that more than a few people consider Wagner's opera to be great works of beauty, but I also know that I (along with Rossini) consider his operas to be, for the most part, intolerable.

I'd be curious to know if this Dr. Helen Wright is a married woman. Would her husband be making an error of judgement if he considered her "beautiful"? If so, how would you explain to him, objectively, what it is about his wife's appearance that does not agree with beauty (you assessed her, before taking moral considerations into account, as being "plain")? Would you appeal to proportions and mathematical ratios? What would you direct his wayward eye towards in order to correct him?

Statements such as "beauty is an objective reality" does not account for why each individual has different tastes in landscapes, art, music and literature. These differences do seem to lend weight to the thought that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" unless, of course, we assert that those who respond negatively to objects of objective beauty are in some way making defective judgements. But then the task we must accomplish is this: we must explain to somebody why an object (or thing) - i.e. a simple object such as the colour "green" and a more complex thing such as Piano Concerto No. 2 by Rachmaninoff - is objectively beautiful despite their opprobrious reaction to it, or why an object is objectively ugly despite their approbation.

I can understand the resistance to the thought that "beauty is whatever satisfies my senses" and I'd would be perfectly willing to accept that beauty is divorced from the reactions of the senses, but if a set of objective criteria for proper judgements of beauty cannot be made - this also includes the creation of rules that correct defective judgements and descriptions of what makes an object beautiful despite the repulsion or indifference of the senses - then the argument that "beauty is an objective reality" doesn't seem to be very convincing. If some things are beautiful, then how are they beautiful? If we can easily state the former, we should be able to easily explain the latter.

Well, obviously. But isn't it wiser to marry a virtuous, but plain, woman, than a beautiful floozy? You seem to be saying that physical beauty is more important for western civilisation than virtue.

Women who deny that they should be attractive to men. Where to begin?

Does an "objectively ugly" woman have a duty to be something she is not? Supposing a man actually, after getting to know her, finds her personality attractive and decides to marry her? As Tsartsvo's post suggests, should someone point out to him that his wife is objectively ugly? Is he a pervert for finding her attractive (if not at first sight)?

Evidently!

It appeals to me. I'll check it out. :)

Not her curves, but her public displaying of her curves in an immodest fashion. That's the problem.

The Church wouldn't condone it, regardless of the fact that it's human nature for men to like to look at such things.

Women (and men) should avoid being occasions of sin, and men and women should exercise custody of the eyes.

That is elementary. So I fail to see how immodest displays of beauty are helpful to western civilisation, and how condemning them (even for faulty reasons) is harmful.

I'm sure you're right, but that doesn't make Kim K's behaviour defensible.

Of course not. But as I pointed out before, criticising someone like Kim Kardashian who is already known as one of the most vulgar among a tawdry lot is just shooting fish in a barrel.

How much credit can one expect for saying, "I find TOWIE offensive"? Of course it's offensive. But it's a symptom of a depraved culture, not the cause.

I'm sure the poor sinners who were condemned by the pharisees deserved all the criticism that came their way. So why did Jesus single out the pharisees and not the prostitutes for his condemnation?

Because Israel was destined for a chastisement from God in which not one stone would be left standing upon another and the chosen race specially beloved by God was going to be cast aside. And the cause was not the sins of the poor -- it was the pride of the rich.

Similarly today, when people of the educated class criticize the behavior of "lad culture" while ignoring their own failings which are quickly bringing their civilization to an ignominious end, their hypocritical phariseeism is not harmless.

Max: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,Kim Kardasian is in er early 30's now, so in 20 years or so she will no longer be beautiful toYou,I guess. Clare is absolutly correct to say it is much better to marry a plain but good woman than a good looking floosey,if I were a yong man that would be my choice. Max, do you even have a catholic mind? Kim Kardasian and her kind are a spiritual menace to society,albeit perhaps unknowingly;now having bashed this women I also need to say that we as christians need to pray for her and pray hard.

I sometimes wonder if I have a mind at all.

Don't worry about the SF aspect Clare - it's a great book, if you haven't already read it.

I don't think that's a correct interpretation. I think she's pointing out the obvious; that our young are taught to believe that a certain "look", mainly achieved by silicone enhancements, and epitomised by big hair, 12" eyelashes, lips that look like they've been stung by a whole hive of bees, etc, will get you what's really important in this life, ie fame, money and as much sex as a nymphomaniac on speed could fantasise about. One only has to look at what the devil and the world have done to Kim Kardashian and her ilk to see how much Satan hates women.

I say this as an incredibly beautiful women, obviously....

"I sometimes wonder if I have a mind at all."

Well Maxim, that is the first sensible thing you have said here. (Just teasing you.)

One question first...who is Snooki and Towie? (Should I be asking?)

It is true that beauty can be objective when you say "some things" or even "some people". For example, I doubt anyone would believe otherwise that Our Blessed Mother is the most beautiful woman God ever created if and when we see her in heaven. Or that a fiery red and golden sunset over the ocean is magnificent and therefore also beautiful. Or that the majority of the world in the day thought that the actress Vivien Leigh was beautiful (and I think she was) while today many may think she was just "pretty". Many moons ago chubby average looking women were held up as "beauty contestants" and therefore regarded by the many then as beautiful. I do believe that people can judge and agree on what is and what is not beautiful in many things, but not agree on all.

So my point about - beauty being the eye of the beholder - is specifically related to the fact and that if it were not the case and if every man and woman went for the "same type" of "beautiful" person only (because they all agreed and need that "beauty" especially men according to your commentary) means that only the "beautiful people" would marry, each other. All the "uglies" (I still think that is really mean) are just left to flounder in nothingness. It does not make any sense in the realm of procreation and the reality that when it comes to matters of love and attraction all bets are off, because, thank God, he allowed for "chemistry" and "love is blind" etc. that would enable even the physically unattractive to become the most attractive in the eyes of their beholder, to live happy and fulfilling lives in the love of God, with as many children as God blesses them with, or not.

I believe I understand what you are aiming at though, and that is that you think the author is missing the forest through the trees regarding the real issues for this class of people. And perhaps ought to be going after the "Kate Middletons" of this world who are immoral, as in her unmarried days together with Prince William while they lived a typical secular relationship like every other Godless person today. Or give examples of Jesus and the Saints. And would either have any impact on the modern secular "elitist" but young minds today?

I fail to see that the example used by the author is still not a good one as it pertains to our modern culture that permeates even with the elitists.

Yet, Maxim, you seem to be focusing on "beauty" when that is only part of the issues raised in the article about Kimmie girl. Please keep in mind that the HollyJews are in the business of product to sell to the masses. Kim is the product. The masses are the fish in the barrel. The secular world thrive on "celebrity" and are seduced by this.

Beauty is not the issue. It is sex. Sex sells. It is everywhere. I was totally disgusted recently when I was driving around and came to a red traffic light and looked over to see a truck parked for a furniture bedding company with an image of a half-clad man. I looked away to notice a young boy and girl in another car just glued to that image. I was so upset by this. I have yet to call that company to complain. The point here is, is that "sexualisation" is used for everything, from coffee adverts to furniture to who knows what else.

So to use a seemingly well known celebrity icon as an example is spot on because to the world she is probably "normal", she is esteemed as the epitome of "success, fame, fortune, family and to top it all off...she has beauty too...in other words, to the world, she's got it all." To the younger generations who are easily seduced to these things I bet she is not tawdry to them but el coolio, hip, happen' and a role model.

I would say she is someone that a mass population of secular young girls and boys too! would aspire to be or aspire to be with. Perhaps there are far worse, or not, choices to use than Kim, but she is a safe bet because she is a "family girl" too which has that ring of "goodness" to it to give it that good rounded "feeling" that the HollyJews need for successful marketing of their product, to destroy souls, even the elitists who are not void of contamination of this pestilence of our society.

[dohtml]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0a45z_HG3WU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/dohtml]

:peace:

:lol: :lol:

I agree with what you wrote especially you being an incredibly beautiful women even though I have never met you. :) And the other ploy is that average looking intelligent career minded women are other role models for women such as Hilary Clinton, the feminazis. The devil has it sewn up it seems when it comes to displacing the female, because ultimately it is an act of displacing, replacing and attacking the true role model for all women, and that is, Our Blessed Mother Mary. Satan hates her most because of her humility, because the humble handmaid of Our Lord said "Fiat!" to give birth to Our Saviour. The devil has great knowledge, but no religion and no humility, hence Our Lady is hated most by him.

Actually, this is what she said the problem was

and she uses the next two paragraphs to illustrate her point

Maximilian,

This topic is a serious one. The psychological damage to young women who are influenced by this premature sexualization of their sex can be incredible.

I do not know if you have studied this topic, and the inevitable influence it has on the adolescent male (and the adult male also), but it is one that should not be taken lightly.

Even though the primary problem is a spiritual one – because our human nature is week, and because the adolescent is easily influenced (overcome) by his or her lower passions – society has an obligation to come out and condemn this problem – even on the natural level.

john

Well I recon she's lovely... just the sort of face that any lost child would confidently run to for help. Just the sort of face that I'd like on a trusted friend.

You can have all the painted bimbos... there are plenty of them; but I like the skin that has a real woman underneath.

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more - though it seems that it slid under the wire in there.

I agree with Clare wholeheartedly. To take it a step further, the reality is, people are more openly and probably more actively immoral today and starting at very young ages in regards to the marital act out of marriage.

So the "jeopardy" or "continuance" of the human race has nothing to do with "hindered" "opportunity" of any sort relating to "looks". But there is truth that there is a decline in births, of course, and that is solely based on sins of contraception, abortion and medical procedures - in both men and women - to prevent births for many varied end personal reasons, but they all are rooted in carnal pleasure first, and that is the underlying issue regarding the human race. Of course, God provided us with the muslims and their big families to make up for it as our "reward" in Western civilisation. :/

In Australia a few years ago (maybe still the case, I am not sure but I don't think so) the govt was offering about $5000 to couples to have children, per child. They were encouraging it to raise the population in Australia because it was dangerously low, from my understanding. I told my Trad friends to hike it over here and cash in with their large families. :)