By David Futrelle
There are a lot of guys out there who not-so-secretly resent women for having bodies that get them all hot and bothered.
Warren Farrell, the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, famously warned men to beware of the “cleavage power” and the “miniskirt power” of young women. Incels and MGTOWs today rail against women “torturing” them by wearing skin-tight yoga pants. Hell, last week I wrote about one horny Redditor who blamed women for tempting men by showing their arms in public.
So what about in insidious threat of shoulders, which in addition to being “the laterally projecting part of the human body formed of the bones and joints with their covering tissue by which the arm is connected with the trunk” are also sometimes nice to look at?
Enter Father Kevin M. Cusick. On Sunday, the priest and former military chaplain caused a bit of a stir on Twitter after he suggested that women shouldn’t show their bare shoulders in church lest the sight of such a tempting bit of skin cause the men and boys to suddenly start feeling a bit funny in their pants.
Naturally, more than a few Twitterers took issue with Cusik’s stance. And so he doubled down, and doubled down again, launching into a full-on meltdown that lasted until this morning.
But he topped even those tweets with his final comment on the subject, in which he compared himself, and the treatment he’d gotten from critics on Twitter, to Jesus getting nailed to the cross. No, really.
As it turns out, Cusick’s not just worried about sexy lady shoulders; he’s also worried that women’s bare feet could give priests boners. Several years ago, you see, the Pope said it was ok to include women and girls in Holy Thursday foot-washing rituals. But Cusick worried that foot-washing priests might get turned on by “cute” lady feet.
That last tweet about washing men’s feet seems just a little bit ironic when one starts poking around a little more in Cusick’s Twitter history.
Because, as it turns out, shoulders and feet aren’t his main obsessions. For every tweet he’s written about the dangers of improperly exposed female flesh, there are dozens (hundreds?) of tweet about the evils of gay men and their dirty doings — both in the Catholic Church and in the world at large. (He has much less to say about lesbians.)
In Cusick’s mind, the Church doesn’t have a pedophile problem; it’s got a “homosexual problem.”
Not only is this “homosexual network” intent on sexually abusing boys; it’s also, in Cusick’s mind, “perverting” the Church’s teachings in order to promote the mortal sin of sodomy.
Apparently the only way to ward off this “homosexualist” menace is with the magic of Latin.
He’s a bit obsessed with the whole sodomy thing.
He also has some, well, interesting views on “so-called ‘trans'” folks. Here’s his reaction to a news story about a trans woman teacher.
And here’s his, well, novel theory about the nature of transness.
Needless to say, he won’t be celebrating Pride month.
But Cusick isn’t just obsessed with sex. His Twitter history is a virtual smorgasbord of unhinged takes on almost every hotbutton social issue. He thinks abortion leads to “bloodthirsty mobs on the streets.”
He regularly links to alarming “news” articles on the alleged evils of migrant Muslim “invaders,” including at least one article from rabid far-right Islamaphobe Pam Geller. His own opinions on the subject are only slightly less rabid than hers:
Needless to say, Cusick also hates feminism, especially when it involves young boys being taught that women’s suffrage was a good thing.
But the strangest thing I found in Cusick’s Twitter history? He’s apparently afraid of being enslaved — by Beto O’Rourke.
It’s a weird and more than slightly unhinged reaction to a young man standing on a car spouting vaguely lefty political platitudes. But, hey, anything to get Cusick’s mind off of sodomy, I guess.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Yzek
Why do you keep casting your pearls to swine? Why do you not shake the dust from your sandals and move on?
That’s a A+ on women studies course for you.
I’ts easy: I just don’t hate them and I seem to understand a bit more how they became the way they are.That pious-Catholic-thing somehow protected me from becoming the same. For you: I’m almost the same anyway (guilty of “rape culture supporting” and many other modern sins gradually replacing those 10 I know about). I’m less “defending” than just standing in your shooting range.
That you don’t hate dudes who want me murdered is not working in your favor, my dude.
Some people seemed genuinely want to understand and were asking meaningful questions and I was trying my best to converse with them, while enduring WHTM folklore. Was it a windup? Then I salute to your master-level trolling!
Hey, I should not hate those who want to murder ME, so… But don’t worry, “wege-slaving tradi-cucks” like me will be next, I suppose!
Any “guide book” that even requires a “101-level” course to really begin to understand what it’s saying, let alone up to 301, is just not a good guide book. Might be a good storybook, with some interesting ideas, but by no means a guide book. Especially when there are so many “schools,” each with their own 101-level course, no two exactly alike, and some with extremely radical interpretations.
Well, this is boring. How about that idea that priests should not profane themselves by touching women?
Agreed. But those students are soooo smart, that they already think they guide book and consider it a pile of bulshit:) So, let them crunch something harder (Of course, if they still are willing to learn).
You only have a problem with people who wish you, personally, harm?
Think about that for like, a second. Aren’t you supposed to have empathy, as a Good Catholic Person?
You also seem to think you’re special because you ‘understand’ incels. Surprise, dipshit, so do we. We get it, because (and again, this might be a shock but) nearly everyone goes through that period of feeling ugly and unloveable.
What seems to be an fairly unique response for cis boys and men is to blame *women* with such vitriol that some will eventually murder people. And the rest will elevate those people as ‘supreme gentlemen’ and ‘saints’.
Some fairly common incel points –
“Men have no prospects, now! There aren’t any jobs!” Welcome to late stage capitalism. Others are pretty much guaranteed to have it worse.
“Women don’t need men’s money, so don’t want to marry!” Suck it up. Women don’t need to put up with some asshole anymore.
“Traditional values are being lost!” If they had value in a modern society beyond enforcing a rigid societal structure that kept a specific subset of people on top, then they probably wouldn’t be lost.
“White men are discriminated against!” and “Catholics/Christians are being discriminated against!!!” (which I have actually heard someone, in all seriousness, say to me. This is a real anecdote.)
My response is “LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLL” basically.
Also, I give you a failing grade for wading into a discussion, assuming you knew more than others, and then refusing to back up any assertations you made.
What course is recommended for people who are familiar with Catholic apologetics but don’t accept them? Declaring that an argument supporting your claims exists is not actually making an argument.
Nah, you just hate gay and trans folks instead. That’s much more reasonable.
It’s a bit late for this thread but can I just say that that header image is ?? Who knew Jesus of Nazareth posted thirst traps? #blessed #nofilters #saviorsofinstagram ??
Yzek
You are a liar. You stated that you wanted to make people uncomfortable. You think you are a seminary master and your knowledge of the Bible is pathetic.
Im shaking the dust off my sandals in regards to you.
Sorry, can’t stop, there is someone saying so much wrong thinks about the Catholic church that it hurts.
Interesting enough it is the defender of the faith:
Just a few points:
1. You are allowed to critises a priest, they are human. I remember 2 bishops in my homecountry, that were basicly driven away from their posts by the people.
2. The church is not only the clerity, it is all the belivers together, so statements like “in church x means somethink different than among other people” is rubish. (In this case came also one comment that I would call antichurch, Davids articel and the others are not)
3. All sins are equall, and if you don’t condem all you can’t condem one is also not doctrine only insane trolllogic. (not linking to TVTropes) It also ignore that oficals of the church have condemned child abuse.
4. For a lot of people who believe, some teachings of the church are so ridiculess that nearly everyone ignores them. (In Germany I remember condoms for example)
5. The church has admited some mistakes and said sorry for them. That means that nothing can chance isn’t somethink that is evidently false.
6. The rules of the old testament are old. Exspecially in the third book Moses you will find a lot of rules. I challenge everyone who has to much time or has difficult to sleep to read them. You will find a lot of laws that are not followed anymore (if you think about how old they are not suprising)
7. The most important person for the christian fate (This part is not Catholic only) is Jesus Christ. I find it interesting that many “Christians” only discuse the Old testament and not the New, because exspecially misogony is a lot harder to justify from the New.
Just to be clear that is mostly about the troll and a shotout @Lainy who had a lot of good postings in a lot of topics.
(I could attack a lot in the OP, from the latin mass (still used in songs) which is not the standard today since the Second Vaticanum (and as a catholic priest ignoring a Conzil is problematic) but I have other thinks to do.
@yzek
Why are you still here? Give up and go home. Watching you get batted around was fun at first, but seeing you continue to throw out flimsy arguments after you’ve been so throughly owned is just starting to get pitiful.
Here’s a couple verses for you:
And here’s another where Jesus talks about recognizing false prophets:
So in short, as a Christian all you need to do to is love others and treat them with the same understanding and respect as you would treat yourself. By doing this, you’ve followed all the commands. Also, to know whether a teaching is sound or not, all you need to do is look at the results of following that teaching. Are they good? Then, it’s sound. Are they bad, then you probably shouldn’t follow it.
I’ve heard a “reformed” trans man and a “reformed” gay men give their stories in church about how they “redeemed” their sexuality. It was horrifying and heartbreaking. If anything, all their testimonials did was confirm that those aspects were integral parts of themselves. The trans man (choosing to live as a woman at the time) for example, mentioned that she felt like and wanted to be a boy when she was very little, for as long as she could remember. Both of them described years and years racked with guilt and shame battling against themselves before they were finally able to “overcome” their sexuality and gender identity. (Which I didn’t really buy either)
All evidence suggests that someone’s gender identity and sexuality are natural orientations they’re born with. Trying to change that doesn’t work. Conversion therapy doesn’t work. It only harms people emotionally and mentally.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-thing-feathers/201801/conversion-therapy-isnt-therapy-all
So as a Christian, how should you evaluate telling queer and people that there’s something wrong with them? Is it loving? Is it harmful or helpful? There’s no harm is accepting queer people and letting them live their lives in peace. They just go on to have normal relationships and families like anyone else. But telling them there’s something wrong with them and they should change who they are does tremendous harm. All it does is teach queer people to hate themselves. It robs them of happiness, damages their mental health, and makes them much more likely to commit suicide than straight individuals. And no—the mental health problems queer individuals face are not because they’re queer. They’re from the harassment and isolation they face from those who don’t accept them. Studies show queer individuals have better mental health when they’re in supportive environments vs. unsupportive environments.
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/LGBTQ_MentalHealth_OnePager.pdf
Would it hurt you or Cusik to spend a little time in other people’s shoes and listen to the experiences of women and LGBTQ individuals before you go around proclaiming judgement on them?
Of course, you were just defending a guy offering up his daughters as rape-substitutes a little bit ago, so I can’t say that I expect much.
Troll is boring, so here’s a rat riding on a dog:
With exquisite timing, the Pope has just revised the Lord’s Prayer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/06/led-not-into-temptation-pope-approves-change-to-lords-prayer
So about how Church doctrine never changes…
Unless it is changed to ‘Our Daddy who art in heaven’ it is still a bad translation. The original Aramaic is much less formal than ‘Father’.
Using the Bible as a guide to morality is like using RedPill as a guide to self-improvement. Sure, both contain a kernel of common sense, but it’s the same generic advice you can find anywhere: be confident (RedPill), do unto others…(Bible). When you take those guidelines and cloak them in patriarchy, evopsych/natural law fallacies, and unexamined authoritarianism, it raises the bathwater-to-baby ratio and makes the guidelines less, not more, universally truthful.
Why is it that Lot, who pusillanimously offers up his daughters to be gang-raped without a second thought, is considered by God to be a righteous man worthy of rescue, while Lot’s wife gets turned into a pillar of salt just for glancing back for one second at the city being magically destroyed (and who wouldn’t?) That’s never explained. The only way that works is if women are second class citizens, if the daughters are chattel of less importance than Lot’s reputation for hospitality, and Lot’s wife is simply a disobedient child who needs to be punished. What’s the takeaway for women here? Be quiet and support your men, because righteousness > life.
I’m glad you are all here to fight him on this. I am to emotional invested to do so. Yutz, like the priest who sexually abuse and use the bible to harm others you are a disgrace to the name of god and Jesus Christ. You disgrace Jesus the man’s teaching. You disgrace ever drop of blood that he bleed on that cross. You are a disgrace as a member of the body of Christ that I would happily cast from me Matthew 5:30. And you disgrace all those who hold their faith.
As for Harry potter I love Harry potter. I can enjoy it by still be critical of its flaws and j.k Rowling. For example making Dumbledore gay isn’t really representation when you don’t show him being gay in any book or movie.
I guess this is only vaguely on-topic, but the D-Day anniversary was mentioned in the other thread and I thought about mentioning another event that happened today in Toronto: the raising of the Pride and Trans flags at Varsity Stadium. I was kind of considering going (I only found out about it yesterday), but I forgot and now it’s an hour after the event ended, so… I dunno, did anybody else in the area go to it?
I’ve had mixed feelings on U of T’s actual track record on LGBTQIA+ rights. On one hand, the left wing definitely has a presence in the institution, and the widespread adoption of things like genderless bathrooms and vocal pronoun identification isn’t nothing. On the other hand, Munk’s idea of “debate” has consisted of trash fires like Zizek vs Peterson and Bannon vs god I don’t even remember, who cares. And who knows to what extent the school will push back against Ford’s Orwellian interpretation of campus free speech.
@ Lainy, hugs! I originally wrote a much longer comment, but instead I’ll just say that people like you are the reason I wish WHTM commentors had a regular offline hangout. ?
I found a church where Yzek and his buddies can be safe from scary woman shoulders
https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/1136686858757296130?s=19
@Bookworms
Thanks, I wish that too. You’re one of my favorites on here. Every time I see you commented I get excited to read it.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants:
This is very true. There’s an old story about a respected author (in the original telling I heard, it was George Bernard Shaw, though I’ve since heard it told about others) who gets roped into critiquing an aspiring writer’s efforts and having done so, he is supposed to have responded, “Dear Sir, your work is both original and good; unfortunately, the good parts aren’t original and the original parts aren’t good”. I feel the same about Christianity: the good points (humility, compassion for the less fortunate, etc.) aren’t original– dozens of other religions and philosophical systems espoused similar virtues centuries before the time of Jesus’s alleged ministry– and the original parts (the endless pettifogging over the nature of Jesus specifically and the godhood generally; that is, the parade of Arianisms, Docetisms, Adoptionisms, Monophysitisms, Monothelisms and other -isms that so exercised the early Christian community, often to the point of violence; the irrelevencies like whether Christ is “really present” in a piece of bread or not, the nature of divine grace, etc.) are not good– in that, at best, they’re completely unfalsifiable and redundant (is a Christian’s behaviour truly affected by whether they believe he’s eating a 100% genuine Piece o’ Jesus™ every Sunday or just participating in a remembrance of the Last Supper?) or, at worst, demonstrably lead to mayhem and violence in the world that would not otherwise exist.