Harrison Butker…oy vey…what a commencement “speech”

[ImpactCorey]

39 minutes ago, DrW said:

 

Well, I bite. Take this line from his speech:

"For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you."

 

According to my daughter with a minor in rhetoric (she can talk the paint off the wall), now you would expect one or more examples. Butker continues:

"How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career?" 

 

At least to me, that makes clear what he thinks of women who have a career (whether with or without children).

 

I think the "diabolical lies" part is the most telling.

 

Let's assume that Butker believes you can have a career AND be a good mother.  Then what are the diabolical lies he speaks of?  He wouldn't have chosen that opening if that is what he truly believed.

Edited May 17 by ImpactCorey

[BillsFan4]

Quote

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

 

“I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.

 

“She is a primary educator to our children. She is the one who ensures I never let football or my business become a distraction from that of a husband and father. She is the person that knows me best at my core, and it is through our marriage that, Lord willing, we will both attain salvation.

 

“I say all of this to you because I have seen it firsthand how much happier someone can be when they disregard the outside noise and move closer and closer to God’s will in their life. Isabelle’s dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, ‘Heck, No.’”

 

As a man who gets a lot of praise and has been given a platform to speak to audiences like this one today, I pray that I always use my voice for God and not for myself. Everything I am saying to you is not from a place of wisdom, but rather a place of experience. I am hopeful that these words will be seen as those from a man, not much older than you, who feels it is imperative that this class, this generation, and this time in our society must stop pretending that the things we see around us are normal.

 

Heterodox ideas abound even within Catholic circles. But let's be honest, there is nothing good about playing God with having children — whether that be your ideal number or the perfect time to conceive. No matter how you spin it, there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control.

 

It is only in the past few years that I have grown encouraged to speak more boldly and directly because, as I mentioned earlier, I have leaned into my vocation as a husband and father, and as a man.

those are Butker’s remarks on women and their role. How much clearer could he make it?

He is saying women’s purpose, according to not just him but God’s will, is in the home conceiving and raising children and being a “wife/homemaker” (and later attacks birth control, implying women should have children, or more children, whether it’s convenient for them or not). He said it was a “diabolical lie” that they were told they should have careers and that they would instead be happiest being homemakers.

And then after defining how he views a woman’s role he says his advise is coming from experience and we need to stop pretending what we are seeing is normal (what he meant by “normal” is obviously left up to interpretation, but seeing as he was speaking directly to the women in the audience it doesn’t feel like a big leap to say he probably meant women having careers and not just pumping out kids as stay at home mom’s like they used to).

 

 

And if all of that wasn’t clear enough, He then goes on to address the men in the audience with a much different message. He tells the men they set the tone of our culture and need to be unapologetically masculine and not allow themselves to be “emasculated”. Yes, he says they have a role as fathers but he doesn’t ever once tell them they’d be happier not having careers and staying home to raise kids.

 

Just because he complimented the importance of a stay-at-home wife doesn’t mean what he said wasn’t misogynistic and demeaning. He was VERY clear about how he views a woman’s role. I don’t understand how anyone could say otherwise. He really didn’t leave it up for interpretation. 

 

 

Nobody that disagrees with Butker is attacking nuclear families either. I haven’t seen that even once. Disagreeing with his 1950’s misogynistic view of a woman’s role/purpose is not attacking nuclear families. 

 

And Yea, plenty of stay-at-home mom’s are happy with their lives. Nobody is saying otherwise, or that they shouldn’t be. A stay at home PARENT (not just woman, it can just as easily be a man’s role) is a very important job. If that’s what a woman wants, and they can afford to live on a single income, great! I’m happy for them. I don’t look down on them for not having/wanting a career. But I certainly don’t view that as a woman’s main role and I would never dare to tell a woman that she would be happiest as a stay at home mom, or that’s what she should aspire to be.

 

 

if you agree with his views on a woman’s role, fine. Then own it. Don’t try to spin what he said into something it’s not.

Edited May 17 by BillsFan4

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, BillsFan4 said:

those are Butker’s remarks on women and their role. How much clearer could he make it?

He is saying women’s purpose, according to not just him but God’s will, is in the home conceiving and raising children and being a “wife/homemaker” (and later attacks birth control, implying women should have children, or more children, whether it’s convenient for them or not). He said it was a “diabolical lie” that they were told they should have careers and that they would instead be happiest being homemakers.

And then after defining how he views a woman’s role he says his advise is coming from experience and we need to stop pretending what we are seeing is normal (what he meant by “normal” is obviously left up to interpretation, but seeing as he was speaking directly to the women in the audience it doesn’t feel like a big leap to say he probably meant women having careers and not just pumping out kids as stay at home mom’s like they used to).

 

 

And if all of that wasn’t clear enough, He then goes on to address the men in the audience with a much different message. He tells the men they set the tone of our culture and need to be unapologetically masculine and not allow themselves to be “emasculated”. Yes, he says they have a role as fathers but he doesn’t ever once tell them they’d be happier not having careers and staying home to raise kids.

 

Just because he complimented the importance of a stay-at-home wife doesn’t mean what he said wasn’t misogynistic and demeaning. He was VERY clear about how he views a woman’s role. I don’t understand how anyone could say otherwise. He really didn’t leave it up for interpretation. 

 

 

Nobody that disagrees with Butker is attacking nuclear families either. I haven’t seen that even once. Disagreeing with his 1950’s misogynistic view of a woman’s role/purpose is not attacking nuclear families. 

 

And Yea, plenty of stay-at-home mom’s are happy with their lives. Nobody is saying otherwise, or that they shouldn’t be. A stay at home PARENT (not just woman, it can just as easily be a man’s role) is a very important job. If that’s what a woman wants, and they can afford to live on a single income, great! I’m happy for them. I don’t look down on them for not having/wanting a career. But I certainly don’t view that as a woman’s main role and I would never dare to tell a woman that she would be happiest as a stay at home mom, or that’s what she should aspire to be.

Perfectly stated.  He is a representative of a staunchly Catholic faith speaking to a college of the same.  So his comments are not surprising.  But Martin Luther began the Reformation precisely because of difficulties with staunch Catholic theology.

[What a Tuel]

14 minutes ago, DrW said:

 

Well, I bite. Take this line from his speech:

"For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you."

 

According to my daughter with a minor in rhetoric (she can talk the paint off the wall), now you would expect one or more examples. Butker continues:

"How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career?" 

 

At least to me, that makes clear what he thinks of women who have a career (whether with or without children).

 

 

16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. 
 

He talks of women having diabolical lies told to them, immediately after which he speaks of some that MAY go on to careers but that the majority are MOST EXCITED about marriage and children.  Then says his wife’s life TRULY STARTED when she began linking her VOCATION as a wife and mother.

 

He did not use the words mutually exclusive but makes it as clear as say that women should aspire to be wives and mothers.  As in his wife had no life before that.  And then in an even more inflammatory statement explaining his comments he indicated he aspired to a time when women did not have thoughts.  
 

His feelings on the role of women is quite clear.  

You can extrapolate all you want but it still does not say that the two are mutually exclusive. Literally says its a choice and a choice that his wife did not regret.

[GunnerBill]

I went to a Catholic High School. I was experienced dismantling their nonsense by 15. 

[ImpactCorey]

1 minute ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You can extrapolate all you want but it still does not say that the two are mutually exclusive. Literally says its a choice and a choice that his wife did not regret.

 

Using his wife to prove your point is a really bad example.  In fact he says for his wife it WAS mutually exclusive:

 

"Isabelle's dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, “Heck, No.”"

 

She had to give up not only a career, but her DREAM career to be a homemaker.  That is by definition, mutually exclusive.  What is stopping her from pursuing her career otherwise?

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You can extrapolate all you want but it still does not say that the two are mutually exclusive. Literally says it’s a choice and a choice that his wife did not regret.

He did not say that about his wife.  He said that his wife would say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and mother.  If you are going to parse words be accurate.

 

By implication he is telling the women in the audience their only vocation if they want their life to truly start is to be a wife and mother.  That other vocations don’t count.

 

[DrW]

39 minutes ago, DrW said:

 

Well, I bite. Take this line from his speech:

"For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you."

 

According to my daughter with a minor in rhetoric (she can talk the paint off the wall), now you would expect one or more examples. Butker continues:

"How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career?" 

 

At least to me, that makes clear what he thinks of women who have a career (whether with or without children).

 

 

To set things straight, my daughter would like to emphasize that the rhetoric degree is not a minor, but her second major. Her first major is in the STEM field.

[warrior9]

On 5/14/2024 at 8:52 PM, QB Bills said:

Saw that this morning. It's gospel for insecure dudes.

Or really rich dudes that it's realistic that their wife doesnt have to work and she's happily a stay at home mom so he formulated his opinion off of that and being a catholic traditionalist.. I don't agree with it but if i was worth 10+ M .. my wife would probably be stay at home, as well. 

Edited May 17 by warrior9

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

Or really rich dudes that it's realistic that their wife doesnt have to work and she's happily a stay at home mom so he formulated his opinion off of that and being a catholic traditionalist.. I don't agree with it but if i was worth 10+ M .. my wife would probably be stay at home, as well. 

 

If I was worth £10m+ I'd stay at home. Screw the wife. Or the husband. They can go to work. Luckily my partner is a workaholic we have agreed an age at which I am going part time. I enjoy my job, but I enjoy not being at work more.

[Beck Water]

On 5/14/2024 at 10:40 PM, ExiledInIllinois said:

Nice when you one can be a stay at home mom with a husband raking in millions kicking a ball AND previously cheating doing it.

 

https://www.footballzebras.com/2023/01/officials-told-to-watch-for-illegal-foreign-objects-used-for-fg-and-xp-attempts/

 

I wonder if her kitchen is bigger than most people's houses? 😆 

 

 

 

 

I initially read that quote as "start her vacation as a wife and a mother"

 

I know very well that raising children and keeping a home is challenging work, not a vacation. 

 

But when your husband makes millions of dollars and you can afford a home, as much help with housework, yardwork, cooking, and laundry as you choose, as much childcare as you choose - life is a little different than if you're trying to make ends meet on one income and worrying about what you'll do after your old, but totally functional car was totaled by a drunk driver and the insurance payout is much less than the cost to buy a comparably maintained and reliable car.  Or how you'll afford a new furnace if yours can't be repaired again this winter.

[DrW]

In the end, everybody or every couple has to decide what is best for them, and going with Mr. Butker's suggestions is not always optimal. My wife and I both have a career in science and still managed to successfully raise two kids. On the other side, my sister had planned to return to teaching geography after her second child. Sadly, the child was severely handicapped, and she and her husband decided that he would continue working because he had a high-ranking position as a mathematician, while she would be saying at home. 

On the other side, several years ago I was awarded a rather large research grant by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Looking for a scientist to help me running the lab, I put an ad in Science, one of the leading journals. I got about 400 responses, but only two came close to what I expected. I hired one of them, a postdoc from Armenia, Nelli. It was a full success. We have published more than five papers based on her work. Her husband is a carpenter (an excellent one, judging by the work he did for us), and is supporting her for every step in her career, although, admittedly, initially it was not easy for him to give up the role as the major breadwinner as suggested by Armenian customs. Nelli is now an associate professor at Penn State; her daughter graduated from college, her son is still in high school.

  

Edited May 17 by DrW

[Beck Water]

8 hours ago, Terry Tate said:

If any of this surprises you, I can't wait till you discover there's probably a dozen guys in every NFL locker room who are flat earthers.

 

It doesn't surprise me, but it ..... disappoints me?  I probably have an idealized or romanticized idea about the acceptance and tolerance levels of an NFL locker room.

 

5 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

This "Full Text" has some notable omissions.

 

Say more, please?

 

5 hours ago, Utah John said:

Why on earth would a school pick a football player, particularly a kicker, to be the commencement speaker?

 

Presumably because they knew he would say things they wanted their student body to hear, based on last year's speech at Georgia Tech.

 

Why Georgia Tech would pick a football kicker is a better question.

Edited May 17 by Beck Water

[ExiledInIllinois]

30 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I initially read that quote as "start her vacation as a wife and a mother"

 

I know very well that raising children and keeping a home is challenging work, not a vacation. 

 

But when your husband makes millions of dollars and you can afford a home, as much help with housework, yardwork, cooking, and laundry as you choose, as much childcare as you choose - life is a little different than if you're trying to make ends meet on one income and worrying about what you'll do after your old, but totally functional car was totaled by a drunk driver and the insurance payout is much less than the cost to buy a comparably maintained and reliable car.  Or how you'll afford a new furnace if yours can't be repaired again this winter.

Yup!

 

Can I marry Harrison? I will mother his children. 😆 

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, What a Tuel said:

 

You can extrapolate all you want but it still does not say that the two are mutually exclusive. Literally says its a choice and a choice that his wife did not regret.

So you want to interpret some things literally and not others to fit your opinion.  We’re done.

[dorquemada]

3 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Smaller % populations control 25%+ more of the world's wealth. 

 

Just saying...

 

Oh boy here we go. Don't you have a college commencement to ruin?

[Neo]

God, class, income, values .. what a feeding frenzy chum we have!

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 minutes ago, Neo said:

God, class, income, values .. what a feeding frenzy chum we have!

[Mike in Horseheads]

[Beck Water]

12 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

What I don't understand is why anybody cares what a football player says at a parochial school graduation. 

 

When I was young I slept around big time and drank beer. If this guy made a speech condemning me and others of my ilk, I cannot stress enough how little I would care. If a person is gay, why would the comments of this person be of any importance at all to them? I'm being serious. I simply cannot fathom why anyone should care or even be injured in any way. Would said person stop being gay? Become more gay? 

 

I have three quite accomplished, wonderful daughters. They are proud women (and Bills fans LOL). If this person did make bad comments about women they would probably call him a name of sorts and completely forget about it the next day because comments like this are inconsequential in their busy lives. 

 

I think that today too many people think that everyone else simply HAS to agree with them. It is not a good omen for the country.

 

As always, jmo.

 

That's a really fair question, Bill, and I think it deserves a thoughtful answer so I'll try.  I'll also try to be uncharacteristically brief about it.

 

In part, it comes down to the so-called "paradox of tolerance", in which people who speak out against prejudiced, intolerant speech have it pointed out that they are being themselves intolerant of another person's opinions.  Why not just "live and let live", why should you care?  To me, one of the best responses is Yonatan Zunger's essay "Tolerance is not a Moral Precept", in which he frames tolerance not as a moral imperative, but as a "peace treaty" which allows different people of different views to live side by side and not be at each other's throats with the belief "that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business."  (I think that's what you're expressing above).  I recommend it as reading; it will come up with a demand to join Medium, just click on the X and it will let you read.

 

Zunger points out that when viewed as a peace treaty, the limits of tolerance become obvious: a peace treaty applies only to those who are willing to abide by its terms; it is not "a suicide pact" where we are obliged to tolerate people's stated opposition to our lives and safety, or our neighbors’ lives and safety. (It's fundamentally the same principle as "your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose")

So if someone says "I wouldn't want to be friends with a gay person because I don't think it's right" (or "I don't think it's moral to sleep around and drink and I don't associate with people who do"), they may be living by the terms of the treaty.  They're talking about how they choose to live their life, whatever.  If they refer to an LGBTQ person as an "abomination", they're using dehumanizing language - abominations aren't people with the same fundamentally human feelings and experiences we all share, right?.  IMHO not only a gay person, but all people should care then, because historically, dehumanizing language has accompanied systematic discrimination and even systematic atrocities.

 

Where Butker went, referencing "dangerous gender ideologies" and "the deadly sin sort of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it", he is verging close to dehumanizing language.  If a person lives their life with "dangerous gender ideologies" or "deadly sin", are they a person with the same human feelings and experiences and right to live their lives and talk about their experiences?  If something is dangerous and deadly and I live by it, do I have the same rights to live in our communities peacefully?  I dunno, but that's why my ears pricked up.

 

That's why I care, and feel concern for things like this being said.  If no one speaks up, it can become normalized.  And if it becomes normalized, then historically, too often, it doesn't end with words but with actual impacts on people's lives and safety.

As far as Butker's comments about the true vocation of wives and mothers towards which ladies should feel most excitement: the same principle applies.  Is this an indication that the speaker is expressing his personal beliefs, which I should tolerate?  If I were one of the young women who just worked my ass off for 8 semesters to earn a degree only to hear from my college's chosen and endorsed commencement speaker that my true vocation is as a wife and mother, I would feel PISSED because it would seem to be devaluing my efforts.  But whatever.

 

My daughter, and likely your daughters, have been able to pursue whatever career or vocation and hobbies they freely chose.  They have been able to receive whatever health care they choose, including reproductive health care.   The real concern I feel is, are these beliefs part of an organized attempt to impose a set of restrictions on me, my daughter, your daughters?  And there are documented cases where they are.

Brief as I can be, Peace Out!

 

 

Edited May 18 by Beck Water