5 Ways Opening the Door for Women Can Go Terribly Wrong

The young Catholic man is taught – perhaps even more than most – to open doors for women. His mother demands this of him, knowing that chivalry is a wonderful virtue to practice. His father demands the same, knowing that his son is going to need all the help he can get to attract women, wondering only vaguely what happened to all his family’s good-looking genes. This all goes to prove the point that virtue is at once desirable and practical. It offers both heavenly and earthly reward. This fact is seen in the practice of Patience; it will obtain for you both that Great Heavenly Peace and a little peace amongst your more obnoxious brethren. Hope gets a man to God and through the day. Likewise, the practice of Chivalry helps a man gain both Heaven and heaven-on-Earth, namely, the warm embrace of an attractive woman. And why not? After all, if virtue was all pain and no gain, we’d be Puritans. And – judging by those liquor cabinets – we’re not.

Thankfully. As Chesterton once said, and I paraphrase here: No one likes Puritans.

So we awkwardly out-walk women to the door. I am of the belief that this action is entirely representative of a higher willingness to sacrifice ourselves for these enormously good-looking things. We grab the handle, wrench the door open triumphantly and assemble our face into features that say, “Today a door, tomorrow my life!” or something equivalent. We are aware – believe it or not – that women are capable of opening doors.  Some of us – writers, poets and other degenerates – have the more unfortunate awareness that these same women could put us on our backs and mace us on the way down. But we pretend and they oblige, because it’s not the thing itself; it’s the symbol, as any good Catholic schoolboy knows. 

Not a common symbol, I know.

But there are dangers associated with chivalry, as St. George will testify to. Let no feminist laugh off our noble door-opening as unable to rectify thousands of years of oppression. It’s a dangerous business, opening that darn door. Especially when you’re on a Catholic campus. I give you then, my list of things that can go terribly wrong:

1. The Accidental Door-stop. This is truly humiliating, especially if the girl in question is one you have the hope of making a breed of legitimate children with. There you are, you and Anne-Marie Elizabeth O’Connor, approaching the door. You remember your parent’s warning; you slip in front of that gorgeous woman and open it. She passes through. Life is good. And then a crowd of waddling rugby players – seeing your noble act – decide to take advantage. They follow tightly behind Anne-Marie Elizabeth, giving you acknowleding grunts, cutting you off from your beloved. This, of course, causes a jam, and another crowd joins behind them – you still holding the door, the delicate Anne-Marie Elizabeth half-way down the hall. You gaze at her, you make eye contact; all is lost. You have been degraded from a man to a door-stop. It is almost worst that she stands to the side and waits for you. You know what she is thinking; here’s a man who the world can pushover, who will run screaming at the first sight of childbirth. You know it. The bright ‘thank you’s’ of the girls who mistakenly think you are holding the door for them do absolutely nothing to comfort the despair in your heart.

2. The Locked Door. You approach, brimming with confidence. You are, after all, a member of the male species. You have rugged good looks, a high sperm count, and a firm belief in the virtue of hard work. The door handle gleams. You place a ruddy hand firmly on the cold metal. You yank, strongly, desiring nothing more than to impress Mary-Clare behind you with the sweeping arch of the door. You dislocate your shoulder. While you bite back pain, you manage to say, “Oh, haha, I didn’t realize…” while Mary-Clare – biting back something else – quietly inserts the key. You resolve to punch yourself in the face later that evening.

I’m telling you, life is hard. It’s situations like this that lead to intense confusion in the adult male.

YouTube Preview Image

 

3. The Non-Compliant Female. There’s always one. You thought you knew her - Catherine-Clare Robinson – you really did. She is Grace Kelly, you Jimmy Stewart. You thought she was one you could share your life with, stay up late discussing the more romantic points of the doctrine of pre-destination, you learning to love Jane Austen, she learning to love Jack Daniels, etc. etc. So you approach the door filled with hope, with anticipation of future joy. You open it wide, her solider and servant. “No, go ahead!” she says happily, gesturing towards the open door. You stop. You are confused. Why is life not progressing onward to the Jane-Jack future of your dreams? Why has she stopped? “Go on!” she says. You are stuck. Is she a radical feminist? Is it a test? If it is, is she looking for a man who will insist open her advancing first, or the man who will oblige her instantly? You don’t know. You try to read her mind. She sighs with impatience. You think: That means I should just go. You step in front of her. Unfortunately, that particular impatient sigh of Catherine-Clare Robinson means, ‘never-mind’. So your step forward cuts her off. She slams into your back. She sighs impatiently. Your life is over.

This doesn't happen.

4. The Long-Distance Relationship. You have no plans to open this door for anyone but yourself. And why? Because there is not a single member of the desire-of-your-heart sex within sight. So you open the door. Walking through you catch a glimpse of something reflected in the doors now-swinging window. Could it be? It is. Cecilia Mary-Margaret – the reason you were put on this earth – is approaching. How could you not have noticed her? She cometh! Or does she? You stop, and turn around. No, she is walking past. You let the door slam. Dammit, nope, she’s coming back. You run back and open the door proudly. You wait for her to arrive. And wait. She sits down on a bench outside the building and pulls out the Imitation of Christ. You slowly, slowly, attempt to close the door without her noticing your amateur mistake. It clicks. She looks up. You run.

5. The Double Door. You and the incredibly exotic Francesca Maria Guiseppe approach the building. ‘Nubile’ – you believe – is the word to describe her, but you can’t remember what it means, and whether or not to complement her with that word. So caught up are you in this question that you mindlessly open the first set of doors for her. Then you see it. A second set. She is already walking through the first. You have a moment to act. Time slows. You could rush a step ahead of her and open the next door, but that would involve pushing her aside to allow her through. An inherent contradiction of intent. You could perform the splits and reach out with your fingertips, just far enough to give the door a push, but that would involve ripping apart your tendons. What, a voice cries, don’t you love her? You could stall her with witty conversation – “Wait! Francesca! Before you open that door! Did I ever mention how nubile your hair is today?” – and subtly move in front of her. You could – the door opens. Another boy, Marcos Johannes Paulos has opened it for her. Their eyes meet and you know, in that instant, that you are finished. Your life is far, far from nubile.

So there you have it. Let no man tell you virtue is easy. But practice it nonetheless, for this life and the next.

How To Love a Girl

There are two ways not to love a girl. The first is the most obvious, and hardly needs mention, but for totality’s sake, I put before you the Secular Humanist Model. This model, from every angle and direction it’s looked at, sucks. You’ve all heard it before, its maxim – anything goes between two consenting adults – and its one and only commandment – unless otherwise specified, no cheating. This relationship is interesting because it is simultaneously greater and worse than the relationships of baboons. Greater, because no baboon is held to the awesome, unwritten oath of fidelity we humans bind ourselves to. Worse, because baboons are acutely aware of the proper functions of their genitals, and use them accordingly. I’ll leave it at that. Better, because the Secular Humanist Model puts a taboo on rape. Worse, because it denies responsibility. You’ve also heard all the reasons this model is boring – the hook-ups, heartbreak, chemical bonding, contraceptive culture, abortion – it is basically a polite Use. Two individuals use each other for their mutual benefit, and then go on there less-than-merry way. (Do I generalize? Of course.)

My main problem with this model of loving a girl is that it is not loving a girl. It’s a business proposition. The girl usually holds the cards, sure, and the guy is usually the bargainer, which is better than it might be, but is that love? Emotional fulfillment can be happily traded for pleasure, but is that everything? Is that the desire of our hearts? The Secular Model seems to take it’s inspiration from the pop song that cries, “What is love? Baby don’t hurt me…” Not that the artist had this in mind, but is that not an accurate description of the Secular Model? The answer to the question, “What is love?” is nothing more than the cautious desire to avoid pain. I don’t know what love is, but don’t cheat on me. I’m not sure about this whole love thing, but I’ll settle for a give-and-take situation in which I won’t be hurt. Except it always ends in hurt. But I’ve spent too long on the idiocy of secularism. Let’s talk about those disgusting religious.

There is a tendency amongst Christians – and I have to point out that I’ve heard it preached most often by our Evangelical brothers – to practice what we shall call the Jesus-First Model. I’m sure you’ve heard it before, some bright-eyed girl wearing a little, silver cross informs you that “Jesus comes first in my relationship.” Or your friend tells you, “first God, and then my spouse.” It’s not that I disagree with the sentiment – that God should be our primary goal – but I do deny the existence of a ‘love-list’ we are obligated to follow. I remember, as a child, making this list: “First comes God, then my family, then my best friend, then the rest of my friends.” But I am leaving childish things behind. God isn’t calling us to pray to him first and then love our girl, as if the timing of the thing mattered to Him. God isn’t demanding that – for every hour spent on a date – we give him two hours of praise. God certainly isn’t saying we need to somehow work up a greater emotion over him than over our lover. And why not?

Because God is love, its source and destination. The idea that he is frustrated that you’re loving your girl instead of Him is ridiculous. To put it as clearly as I can, to love another is to love God. We tend to only apply that to “the least of our brothers,” but it can be equally applied to “the greatest of our sisters”(if you know what I’m saying). Jesus does not come before your spouse, Jesus is your spouse. God does not come first, God is central. God is where your love comes from in the first place, and he is loved through those you share it with. I find that married people are very aware of this truth, but teenagers are idiots about it. Don’t limit love by trying to order it. It comes from God and goes back to Him, and we – mysteriously, beautifully – are the channels of its flow, channels that can never become too full. So love strong.

Good Work

Dear Catholic bloggers, artists, musicians, priests, You-Tube video makers, published writers, Facebook-note writers, youth ministers, music ministers, film directors, photographers, church architects, and everyone else. C.S Lewis has something extremely important to tell you. Listen!

“Until quite recently – until the latter part of the last century – it was taken for granted that the business of the artist was to delight and instruct his public. There were, of course, different publics; the street-songs and the oratorios were not addressed to the same audience (though I think a good many people liked both). And an artist might lead his public on to appreciate finer things than they wanted at first; but he could do this only by being, from the first, if not merely entertaining, yet entertaining, and if not completely intelligible, yet very largely intelligible. All this has changed. In the highest aesthetic circles one now hears nothing about the artist’s duty to us. It is all about our duty to him. He owes us nothing; we owe him “recognition,” even though he has never paid the slightest attention to our tastes, interests or habits. If we don’t give it to him, our name is mud. In this shop, the customer is always wrong…
But [...] I doubt whether we have a duty to “appreciate” the ambitious. This attitude to art is fatal to good work. Many modern novels, poems, and pictures, which we are brow-beaten into “appreciating” are not good work because they are not work at all. They are mere puddles of spilled sensibility or reflection. When an artist is in the strict sense working, he of course takes into account the existing taste, interests, and capacity of his audience. These, no less than the language, the marble, or the paint, are part of his raw material; to be used, tamed, sublimated, not ignored or nor defied. Haughty indifference to them is not genius nor integrity; it is laziness and incompetence. You have not learned your job. Hence, real honest-to-God work, so far as the arts are concerned, now appears chiefly in low-brow art; in the film, the detective story, the children’s story. These are often sound structures; seasoned wood, accurately dovetailed, the stresses all calculated; skill and labor successfully used to do what is intended. Do not misunderstand. The high-brow productions may, of course, reveal a finer sensibility and profounder thought. But a puddle is not a work, whatever rich wines or oils or medicines have gone into it.
“Great works” (of art) and “good works” (of charity) had better also be Good Work. Let choirs sing well or not at all…”

- C. S. Lewis (Good Work and Good Works – The World’s Last Night Copyright 1987)

Is your work for the Church “mere puddles of spilled sensibility or reflection”? Because everyone’s sick to death of crap art, ‘modern’ architecture, incredibly long blog posts describing the contents of your day, articles that barely scratch the surface of their subject, priests that seem to think that the mass is a great place for them to say whatever they want, and, in general, the puddles of reflection that often take the place of good work.

I’m not grumpy! It just hit me that those words should be taken to heart every time I go to post.