A Response To Circling the Drain by Emily Stimpson Chapman

O Mary conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to thee!

It isn't often that someone writes a response to something that is on my radar... Usually if I see one, I have to look up the original article or interview that the responding article is referencing. 

That was not the case this past weekend, when I was sent a Substack article, which was a reaction to a Pints With Aquinas interview with Mike Pentile. I hadn't listened to it yet, mainly because I thought it was aimed at men. 

However, as I read this Substack by Emily Stimpson Chapman, I knew I had to listen to the original conversation. I was pleasantly surprised with the original video and I have to say, Pentile did an incredible job. Not only was he in line with Catholic Church teaching, but he spoke in a relatable, intelligent manner. I thought he had an incredible testimony, speaking out about the lies in the red pill community, that he actually lived out! His conversion to the faith and how he began to love and lead his wife was so inspiring I wanted to send it to all the men in my life. Pentile was genuine. He spoke about personal things that most men wouldn't be comfortable sharing. When it came time to talk about feminism, Pentile was direct. Honest. He didn't say anything contrary to the Church, which makes a person wonder why anyone would critique him in such a way as Chapman did on her Substack. 

After listening to the conversation, I reread Circling the Drain. I want to address each point she made, beginning with her criticism on Pentile's words for the differences of men and women:

First, in the video Pantile rightly asserted that men and women are different. We are. Men and women are not the same. God created us male and female, and sexual difference is a great and glorious gift from Him. But the Church considers maleness and femaleness two different ways of being a human being. She does not believe, as Pantile implied, that we are two different types of creatures, whose likeness is rooted solely in the fact that “we’re God’s creation.” Rather, we are alike because we share the same human nature.

Chapman rightly claims that Pentile says what makes men and women the same is that “we’re God’s creation.” However, Chapman fails to mention that right before he said that, Pentile said that men and women have equal dignity. To me, this part of the response looks like someone is searching for something that isn't there. It is unfair to take only half of what someone said and claim that he is leading men astray. 

Anyone who knows Matt Fradd, knows that if a Catholic claimed something to be outright against what the Church believes, Fradd would correct them on what is actually taught by the Church. He does this later on in the interview when Pentile misquotes Aquinas (which, on another note, is the misquote that I have heard many people say about Aquinas' view on drinking till the point of laughter).  

The next thing Chapman has a problem with is both Fradd and Pentile's view on women voting. This is not a Church teaching, but rather a political opinion held by both people having a conversation. Chapman appears to be offended and cannot begin to think of a world where women don't have the vote. This is an opinion that each party is entitled to, but one must have reasonable reason to believe it. I would ask Chapman what the reasoning is for her wanting married women to get the vote?

Fradd mentions that a household should have one vote. The head of the household would obviously be the one casting the vote, as he speaks on behalf of the family. One of the problems some critics have with women voting, is that if one believes that the man is the head of the household, which any Catholic should believe, based on scripture and tradition, then giving women the vote, gives her the power to go against her husband and vote for the candidate she likes, no matter the reason. 

Obviously this is a whole topic of its own, but voting for women is a relatively new idea when you look at history and it isn't wrong for people to question it and discuss it.

Speaking of history, Chapman implies that women have been oppressed since the beginning of time, and only feminism is what has saved women from their hardships.

But if not for women who did call themselves feminists, Saint Edith Stein might never have become a philosopher, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla might never have become a doctor, and Flannery O’Connor might never have written her stories. It was first wave feminism which secured the educational opportunities those women needed to fully develop their gifts. Likewise, without the work of feminists, women who were beaten and abused wouldn’t have had shelters to which they could flee. Nor could they have kept and raised their children if they did manage to leave. Likewise, women who were abandoned wouldn’t have had the ability to buy or sell property, sign contracts, or even open a bank account in their own name. Yes, feminism has brought many an ill to our world, but it’s also brought many real goods. Any serious conversation about feminism has to recognize both realities.

What is implied here is feminist propaganda, and here is why: It may be true that Gianna Molla may not have become a doctor. That isn't why she became a saint, so it isn't as if the Church would have lost a saint in that. It isn't necessarily true that O'Connor and Stein wouldn't have written what they wrote. Otherwise, 

Theresa of Avila (1515-1582) couldn't have written Interior Castle & Way of Perfection without feminism.

Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179) couldn't have written down her mystical visions, her poetry or music without feminism. 

These are two examples of many women who were not oppressed, despite what the feminists will tell you. 

To address the women's shelters and abuse, there will always be bad men. Men who will beat their wives and abuse their authority. However, it is important to note two things. 

First, throughout most of history, women had the power to accept or refuse a marriage proposal. You can find this even on secular websites that will say that was the only way women had power in society. Many don't realize how much power that is, especially since that means that women were able to choose their husband. If they deemed a man worthy of marriage, they are the ones responsible for that choice. Not to say we shouldn't have compassion on women who are in bad marriages, but when we are claiming something was good for society, we must look at all the factors. 

As a Catholic, if you believe that the biggest issue women face is about equal dignity, then as a Catholic you should be looking at the Church, not to politics and movements, for the answer. You must understand what "equal in dignity" means. We know that Catholics have always honored women. The Blessed Mother is a perfect example of that. I'd encourage every woman to look into what the Church teaches (throughout history, before even JPII) and why women were honored specifically in the home. 

Also, Catholics were the first to open private schools, orphanages, and hospitals. How do we know that throughout history, convents didn't take in abused women? Just because there were no "battered women shelters" how are we to say that those women were not taken care of?

Again, there will always be bad men, tyrants, abusers, etc. But the big question is, should our course of action be the feminist movement? 

Feminism was a movement created to liberate women in all areas. Many of the founders practiced witchcraft. There is proof that they wanted to dismantle the family. If you believe that the "good" that has come from the movement outweighs the bad, you are misinformed. There are other ways of achieving the goods you desire, without looking to feminism, which is an evil movement. 

The second thing to note is that state of our world today, with feminism. I don't think you can honestly say "It is better because of feminism." No fault divorce, abortion, hookup culture, the out of control #MeToo movement, and lots of division and tension between the sexes. In other words, total corruption of our society has come from the feminist movement, "Hell on earth" as Pentile quotes Fr. Ripperger in the original interview. 

You can find a "debatable good" in every action. A woman's life can be saved through abortion, but it is wrong to murder a child, no matter what. St. Gianna knew this by the way, and THAT is why she is a saint. 

Moving on to the next part of Chapman's critiques: 

Pantile’s assertion that “the perfection of femininity” is a woman “saying yes to God through her husband, in being obedient and submissive.” This is wildly untrue. If it were true, the doors to perfection would be slammed shut on the countless women who have given their lives to Christ through consecrated life. The Church, however, has celebrated these women for millennia, recognizing that their whole life is a yes to God. And that’s what all our lives are called to be: one great yes to God—yes to His will, yes to His plan, yes to allowing Him to transform us into the unrepeatable work of wonder He made each of us to be. That “yes” is what constitutes holiness, and holiness, not submission and obedience to a fallen human being, is the perfection of femininity. It’s the perfection of masculinity, too (because, again, shared human nature).

 Anyone who listens to the original interview can see that this whole conversation is about the vocation of marriage. Penile isn't speaking about religious or priests. He is speaking to married men and women. Submission and obedience by the wife are in scripture, the writings of Church fathers, and writings of the popes. To say otherwise is against the teaching and tradition of the Church.

I will also say for religious women, they are technically the "brides of Christ." So submission and obedience to their "husband" if you will, is also necessary. 

Honestly this whole paragraph shows no understanding of vocations. Yes, we all are meant to do God's will. We are called to submit to God. But there are different callings from God on earth. There is the higher calling, which is giving up the world to become a religious, and there is the lesser vocation, bust still a vocation jus the same: the married vocation. When we submit to our husbands, just as a monk submits to his abbot, we are doing God's will. God gave you a husband to lead you. Protect you. Love you. It is God's will that you submit to that man. Just as it is God's will for your husband to go to work and provide for his family, even when he doesn't want to. 

Next, Chapman says she could go on but she doesn't want to repeat herself. She is annoyed by the conversation because she feels it shouldn't be had. It sounds like Protestants talking, or college aged kids with no marriage experience...Ouch. Those are some harsh words that aren't really sensible and it honestly makes it sound like she has no words or arguments, it just enraged her. I will say it again, to claim that feminism is a "good" for society, you must be able to explain away thousands of years of Church teaching. Saying that things like this make you annoyed, is not enough. 

You want to talk about what marriages need, then talk about what marriages need. They need wives and mothers who are virtuous enough to imitate Our Lady. Mary was not proud. She was obedient and submissive to Joseph, her husband and protector on earth. Again, you can go to the writings of saints and the church to know this.

My hope in writing this is that women who may have read this Substack, might dive a little deeper. Maybe you haven't heard the original interview, but I hope you will. It was a good one!

We need to seriously think about the feminist movement and what it has brought us. Read the first articles of the feminist movement. It is not what you think it is. 

Until next time, 

Deo Gratias!

Gina 💕