The Wrongs of Women’s Rights
The recent decision to deploy women on submarines has been hailed as a victory in the continuing struggle to liberate women from the oppression of the domineering male sex. Conservatives have generally deplored the move, citing the inevitable sexual tensions and lowering of morale that will result from putting young males and females in such close quarters for long periods of time. (And, think of all those poor male homosexuals who find the submarine service so attractive because of the lack of female competition!). Some conservatives even go so far as to declare their opposition to women serving in any military capacity, but they are a species on the endangered list: Even the great nemesis of women in uniform, James Webb, has backed off, proving once again, that no honest man can be a US senator.
What almost no decent conservative is willing to revive is the old argument that differences between men and women should be reflected in legal, social, and economic structures that encourage women to pursue their traditional role as wives and mothers under the protection and authority of the senior men in their life: fathers, husbands, or guardians. There is, it is true, a "men's movement," consisting mostly of disgruntled peripheral males who are forever whining about their manhood. But if we set such marginalized creatures aside, we can safely conclude that there are few defenders of what feminists like to call "the patriarchy." Even conservative Republicans have largely adopted the feminist myth that one of the triumphs of civilization has been the liberation of women that has taken place in the past, roughly 150 years.
The "patriarchalist" counter-argument, which I have been making for over 30 years, denies the so-called facts in the case. Traditional sex roles, they say, are a function of natural differences—physical, emotional, intellectual—between the sexes. The authority of senior males over a woman is, then, a natural means of protecting her in her role as wife and mother, a role essential for the bearing and rearing of the next generation, which is, after all, the primary duty of each generation. To speak of the oppression of women is like speaking of the oppression of men whom gravity prevents from flying.
When we say that an institution or custom is "natural" (as I have indicated earlier), we mean that it is a response—sometimes quite imperfect—to natural needs. To determine the naturalness of an institution, we look first for a biological basis and then try to establish a base line by making a broad cross-cultural examination. Finally, since there can be quite a wild variation in cultural forms, we should look most closely at the highest traditions to which we are heirs—Christian, Greek, Roman, Medieval. If we determined that the subordination of women was natural, it would not follow that we should approve of clitorectomies, foot-binding, or brutality.
Then, in talking about the "liberation" of women, we shall have to be very careful about what we mean. Many people speak of women's suffrage as a large part of the liberation movement, but the right to vote is clearly irrelevant. A French resident-alien female here in the United States cannot legally vote, but she is possessed of nearly every other civil and social right the feminist revolution has dreamed up. To make the discussion very precise, let us speak only of the liberation of married women from their husbands and look most carefully at the Anglo-American tradition.
But before beginning such an inquiry, we should also make up our minds about corporal punishment within the home. Do we think it is never to be permitted? (If so, on what grounds.) Is it permitted against children but not women? Are there limits that have been observed among civilized peoples? The most extreme case is killing an adulterous wife and/or her lover for honor. This was permitted in Italy and in several American states down into the second half of the 20th century. Are Italians and Texans simply brutes or are such customs—extremely common both in our own and in other traditions—a reasonable response under certain circumstances.
In any such discussion, we must set aside irrational convictions and all the misinformation we may have picked up in school or in popular books on either side, whether the pro-feminist inventions of modern social historians like Lawrence Stone or the simian fantasies of Lionel Tiger, followed by George Gilder.
Then let us start with some very simple propositions. To make the task easier I am going to insert a brief overview that summarizes my earlier work as a preparation for a discussion of the revolutions in English and American law that took place in the past 150 years:
"Feminists, looking back at the traditional sex roles of 19th and 20th century Europe and the Americas, have often written sneeringly of “the patriarchy,” as if the insertion of the definite article confers an academic anathema upon the word. Anti-feminists have responded by explicitly defending patriarchy or by discussing male dominance in terms of the rigid hierarchy of baboons. But human social life has little in common with that of the boorish baboon, and “patriarchy,” as the word suggests,[ refers properly not to the virtually universal human tendency toward male dominance but to societies in which the fathers and senior males rule over the family and tribal structure with sovereign authority.
Our image of patriarchy inevitably comes from Old Testament patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob, who exercised a regal authority over their wives, children, and extended kinfolk. This pattern of authority is not uncommon among other pastoral peoples, but, as societies grow and develop greater complexity, much of this authority is transferred to chieftains, kings, and representative bodies. Nonetheless, in every known society, men have occupied and continue to occupy most of the highest niches of power and prestige.
Why is this so? Anyone who has taken a look, however brief, at his fellow human beings, will have noticed that members of the male sex tend to be bigger and stronger than their nearest female relatives. The difference--on an order of roughly 10%--is not so great as in some species, but it is enough to ensure that most men can physically dominate most women. This disparity is partly a function of inherent physical differences but even more of the different roles played by men and women in society. Most women in history have had to spend a good deal of their time and energy on bearing and rearing children. In primitive societies, this burden, though it might be shared with female relatives, was a good deal heavier than it is in an era of daycare and electrical appliances.
Social roles are not, however, the whole story. Organized women’s athletics are, for the most part, a recent development, but they have existed long enough and, in recent decades, with a good deal of government encouragement without really eliminating the gap between the sexes. Even today women do not often compete with men in aggressive male sports such as boxing and football, and even in sprinting men maintain a significant advantage. The fastest official score for a man running 100 meters is Usain Bolt’s 9.58 seconds, about 9% faster than Florence Joyner’s record 10.48, about which questions have been raised. At the 2008 Olympics, gold medal winner Shelly-Ann Frazier’s 10.78 seconds was beaten by the number 8 male runner’s 10.00. We can begin to believe in sexual equality in the physical sense when there is no sexual distinction in sports, that is, when men and women compete in the same leagues.
It is only natural to assume—and scientific research has gone a long way to verify this assumption—that in the evolution of mammalian, specifically primate species, males and females developed specialized roles: Men became the experts in hunting large game and fighting the enemies of family and clan. Because these specialties are associated with certain attributes of mind and spirit as well as with bodily functions, the nervous and hormonal systems of males and females develop somewhat differently. The differences, in any individual cases, may be quite slight, but overall women are more verbal, men more analytical, women more inclined to what is now called “multi-tasking,” men more prone to concentrating on problems one at a time. For a detailed survey of evidence down to the early 1980's, see my book, The Politics of Human Nature. As human societies have grown and developed—often in strange and wonderful ways--they have always been shaped by these fundamental facts of sexual dimorphism. In a near-universal pattern of dominance, younger humans defer to their elders and females to males.
But, given the creativity of the human race, the type and extent of that power varies greatly, from the easily familiarity of pygmy husbands and wives to the rigidity of Chinese men who (down into the early 20th century) bound women’s feet to make them more dependent. Then we have to distinguish between the basic principle, the sexual differentiation of political power, and, for example, the family practices of nomadic shepherds. Wherever our search may lead us, it will not be toward the reestablishment of a patriarchal theonomy based on Old Testament law.
It is dangerous to speak too broadly, but, in general, sexual distinctions have been more marked in developed civilizations than in primitive societies. At the same time, the civilizations of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome--and of Medieval Europe—developed traditions and rules that required respect for mothers and wives, sisters and daughters. Men controlled the government and the army, dominated the economy, and occupied most of the high status positions. Women who inherited power were often regarded, fairly or not, as weak rulers, and both the woman pharaoh Hatshepsut and Queen Elizabeth I were sometimes portrayed or described in terms that hinted at masculinity. Nonetheless, while men may have ruled (theoretically) their children as absolute monarchs, their authority over wives was, as Aristotle says, political rather than monarchical in the sense that it was limited by law, custom, and respect.
Ancient civilizations, as they developed more complex social, political, and liberal systems, increasingly took steps to protect wives from abusive husbands. The institutions of power were, nonetheless, dominated by men. This domination did not reduce women to slaves or chattel or even to the level of dependent children. While Athenian women were generally subject to the authority of a father, husband, or guardian, some of them were involved in commerce. Roman women were much freer to engage in business and to evade the control of a guardian. They could not, however, engage in public (that is, most legal and political) business, which must have restricted their sphere of operations. Nonetheless, Roman women had greater economic opportunities and a wider sphere of liberty than most European and American women had down to the late 19th century."
So, to conclude this introductory argument, distinct sex roles are more or less universal in human societies and a natural adaptation of the human species to the needs of propagation and social order. Natural tendencies, however, can find almost infinite types of expression. Higher civilizations, while continuing to protect women, have also found ways of accommodating the needs of complex societies, for example by finding the ways of establishing contract rights for married women engaged in business. What the feminist movement has done is to destroy the institutional framework of marriage and society and reduced many men and women to a form of social organization more typical of non-human primates than of even the most primitive human societies.
More to come...
Entries(RSS)
was Adam responsible for Eve? Be honest now.
Did not Adam allow Eve to persuade him to violate God’s instruction?
This small exchange reminds me of the advice I once received from my Father ---" A man is a damned fool if he does not consult his wife before making major decisions in their life, he is also a damned fool if he always takes it."
"As a good Christian answer me this then; was Adam responsible for Eve? Be honest now."
Obviously, yes. Proof text: [A]nd they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" Gen 3:8,9
« What I would like to hear from Lou and other skeptics is their response to the overall approach I have taken. Do they agree that we should seek norms for human behavior in the facts given to us by biology, anthropology, and history, or is there some other approach? If they want another approach, what is it? »
Dr Fleming, discussions on Feminism and the differences of the sexes usually degenerate into trivial over-the-top-who-can-top the other bitching, whining, and groaning sessions. Frankly, the emotionalism is tiresome, off-putting, and boring. If I wanted sensationalism I’d watch the Jerry Springer Show; I wouldn’t waste my and everyone else’s time on this website. So, your approach, Dr. F, sounds very good to me: Keep the thread scientific, statements backed either with physical evidence or with sound hard logic. A civil conversation, but, please, let no one hold any punches either.
Let me comment on whether Adam was responsible for Eve. If Adam is the leader in the relationship, then he is automatically responsible for Eve’s decision and behaviour. That is the price of leadership. The buck stops at the top and that is across board in any and every field. Which is why for the life of me I cannot stomach the Men’s Movement. If men are the leaders of women then the direction and health of society is their responsibility. Not necessarily their fault, men may not have been the cause of the problems, but leaders are responsible to change things and to shoulder the knocks for their efforts. But men who waste their and our time whining and bitching attract the respect of neither men nor women. It's unbecoming of leaders to behave this way. And in this regard, both sexes react the same way.
Mr Wihowski (@42) I am not easily offended. But thank you for taking the time to write your reply. It is very much appreciated.
Listening to modern pundits,historians,politicians and all other social blowhards one would have to wonder how we prevailed in WWII with an all male, predominately white,heterosexual fighting force?
Stephen Goldberg's book, "Why Men Rule" is a good review of this subject. I have not read it in quite a while, but it does explore the universal nature of male dominance in all societies throughout history.
Women's Liberation is a profoundly wrong headed ideology that could only have taken root in abiding ignorance. The notion that one has liberated herself by doing 20 years in a submarine rather than in a home where she is responsible for children could only be held by someone who has a)never been in a submarine and b)has an infantalized understanding of what it means to be a person. "Be all you can be" for most women, make that almost all women, in this sorry economic structure of ours, amounts to flying a computer for 8-10 hours a day while the company calculates her metrics until some human "resources" zombie taps her on the shoulder and tells her that her job had been shipped to the Phillipine Islands - without her.
Women's Liberation has turned out to be a bill of goods at too many levels to calculate or comment on.
If I could add to Mr. Dooley's wise post, millions of Western "men" prefer their wives to work outside the home earning salary so that they can have extra spending money to buy expensive toys like cars, exotic vacations, sports tickets, gigantic televisions and the like.
@Mr Jinkerson 27 September:
Thanks for your question about Pope Benedict XIV, which caused me to do some very enjoyable reading. He was noted for being gay, witty, and intellectual, and was a friend of artists and scientists. So I think, yes, "urbanity" would have been a value he esteemed. Here is some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about him:
"To go to the extreme limit of concession and conciliation seems to have been the principle that dominated all Benedict's actions in his negotiations with governments and rulers, so much so, indeed, that he has not escaped criticism even from those within the Church as being too prone to settle difficulties by making concessions or compromises. However his actions may be judged, whatever may be thought of his motives, it cannot be denied that he aimed constantly at peace and that few causes of friction remained after the close of his administration....
An enumeration of his principal dealings with the heads of states will show that Benedict wisely abandoned, in most cases, the shadow of temporal authority to maintain the substance of spiritual supremacy...
As temporal sovereign Benedict governed the States of the Church with wisdom and moderation and introduced many reforms for the purpose of diminishing abuses and promoting the happiness and prosperity of the people ... but the liberal use of his powers had no other aim than the promotion of the arts of peace and industry. How serious the problem was is best seen from his own words: "The pope orders, the cardinals do not obey, and the people do as they please."
#45 John Seiler--Thanks for the clarification. It was Reagan's Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci who enthusiastically brought about the feminization of the military (I had forgotten about this when I posted my previous comment). Carlucci's role in the kinder, gentler military is a vindication of Dr. Wilson's pessimistic point about the GOP. Next thing you know, these culturally unmoored soldiers will be smoking hashish in Afghanistan and murdering Afghan civilians. Oh, wait . . .
Mr. Fleming's article is an excellent example of why women should accept no authority from men at all, but as quickly as possible get up and walk out of (and refuse to give money to or buy from) every business, organization, religion and marriage in which this kind of thinking holds any sway at all and take her daughters with her.
The fallacy of the argument in a nutshell is that the natural protection of men over women and children should not more confer AUTHORITY (why?) than the natural GIVING of women to men of the children to bear their physical line should give women authority over men. It's been both ways in history, and what we are really needing now is gylany, not matriarchal or patriarchal society.
It is hard to think that there is not an understanding psychological in this kind of deep passion for controlling women as it seems desperate, and perhaps sexually based, since it's as sexist as a man with too much time on his hands (and thinking himself a great writer) is likely to get.
Mr. Jacobi: Interesting information, but at the same time, in condemning dueling Benedict was definitely going against, rather than with, the predominant upper-class opinion of his day.
He who was my best Jewish friend when I was an undergraduate 40+ years ago (Tom died in Israel when a Palestinian blew himself up in a market.), told me of Israel's policies about women in the armed forces. Whether what he told me back in the last century is still in force, I do not know -- but anyway, here goes:
Women serve two years of conscript service as opposed to a man's three years. They are channeled into jobs like instruction, administrative service, nursing, etcetera, in order to free up male personnel for combat duty. Additionally, when a zone becomes even warm, let alone hot, female personnel are withdrawn instanter. Israel views its womenfolk as too precious to risk.
What a disgraceful country: Every time I see a women in uniform leaving her kids behind to go to some war, I want to puke.
A few responses. When I last looked into the story of Israeli women in the military, I read that they had tried initially (as socialist idealogues) to use women in combat but the experiment failed and the Israeli leadership was realistic enough to set aside their Marxian fantasies.
Goldberg's book is good (a revision of an earlier book of his) but rather polemical and materialistic. It can serve, nonetheless, as a good introduction, though the anthropological and historical aspect is rather too thin.
It is a bit foolish, even fatuous to press Genesis into service on a question of a man's legal responsibilities for his wife. The picture in Genesis, of woman created out of man and subordinate to him, has informed both Judaism and Christianity, but it is hardly inconsistent with the myths of Greeks and Romans.
The question of the Church's position on dueling has relatively little to do with the character or opinion of any pope in particular. From many angles, a Christian cannot countenance the killing of a man over harsh words, but the Christian will also understand and forgive hotblooded men for conforming to the social norms of their time. To challenge an innocent man to a duel is always wrong; to challenge a man to a duel when he has inadvertently harmed you or harmed you in a trivial sense, is wrong, but it cannot always be wrong for a man to fight a duel if the alternatives are grim, e.g., loss of protection for his family.
I am going to re turn to the question of a man's responsibility for his wife under Anglo-American law and post a new piece on couverture. When I do, I shall close comments on this post and continue the conversation on the new one.
PS I just went in and approved two comments. I don't know why Lou's went into moderation, but it was probably the word "b--tching." It is not easy, Lou, to detox from the internet poison of flippant response, but a good character, such as you display, responds well.
I also put in something from "Merritt" to show what state feminism has fallen into. The poor lady fails to make a point, her sentences are incoherent to the point of unintelligibility, but she does make it clear that she's not going to take it any more. I'd respond to her outburst if I could figure out what she is trying to say, apart from the ad hominem allegation that anyone who discusses the history of sex roles has some kind of sexual hangup.
#63 John Marino
John,
Your post above reminds me of the scene in the Illiad when Hector is saying farewell to Andromache and their young child. On one page the great poet describes a woman and on the next page a man. I fear it would be difficult for a real poet to describe the scene you refer to @ post 63. Unless of course it is one of those popular "lousy poets" the singer, Leonard Cohen, refers to as "attempting to immitate Charlie Manson."
There is something which I am not sure has been established in past articles in Chronicles. Have changes in marriage laws in the past few hundred years been seen as very radical when they were first suggested? If it was so contrary to existing tradition, wasn't there some resistance or revulsion to it? How was it all made stomachable to people of those times, when they were implemented?
Honour killing is a strange, tragic topic. There was an honour killing case in my region quite recently, where eloping lovers were quietly killed by some male members of the family by drowning them in a river. They were all arrested, as they should be. What was wrong was that in order to make a point, they were given a death sentence, all five of them. A five-way death sentence has no precedence in a country where the last execution took place in 1998. It is also horrifying and not worthy of sane people. Obviously, the impassioned sentence passed by an angry judge will be repealed, but activists demanded that the communal practices on marriage in certain villages be ended, because they are deemed the root cause of such killings. That was not done, because of too many officials explaining to them that communal practices are not easily replaced or worth the difficult effort. You can put the folks guilty behind bars, but not change human behaviour.
The conversation on duelling left me absolutely cold. And a little baffled. Entries read like something right out of a trashy romance novel some women enjoy. Today instead of duelling and fencing over an offense, we sue each other over trivialities. Or we character assassinate. O tempora o mores! Maybe this Benedict XVI should ban suing or character assassination just like Benedict XIV banned duelling. When adolescents take over any activity that used to be reserved for adults, the adults are left to pick up the tab.
Changes in American marriage and divorce law, since they took place in the separate states, were mostly gradual, piece-meal, and were resisted only when, as in the case of South Carolina after the War, they were a tyrannical overthrowing of the tradition. The same thing took place in the French Revolution. The more serious problem is the corruption inflicted by the Enlightenment on the moral sense of Europeans and North Americans who were taught to expect more "humane" and "tolerant" legislation. I can take this up later, after we have talked about honor killing. In this connection, European customs were a good deal more tolerant of elopement. This is a long story but ritualized forms of "marriage by capture" persisted. There are interesting Germanic and Medieval laws that assign various penalties but usually the object of the law was to find a satisfactory solution, not to kill bride or groom.
#64 TJF--In one of Israel's early wars--it may have been the Six Day War--women saw combat at the very outset but the Israeli government quickly saw the handwriting on the wall (so to speak) and, in a state of near panic, hastily pulled all women from combat duty. There matters have rested ever since. This speaks volumes--especially when you consider Israel's severe manpower shortage compared to the armies that the Arabs can put in the field.
"Today instead of duelling and fencing over an offense, we sue each other over trivialities. Or we character assassinate. O tempora o mores!"
There is a dialogue of Plato's that begins with a young man telling Socrates he was going to Court to sue his own father. Socrates is of course ashamed for the young man but I can't remember the name of the dialogue.
Owen Wister's, "The Virginian: A Horseman of the Plains" is probably the best description of the last American timocrats and the code of honor by which they lived. that is still available to a wide audience.
The comments about Genesis and the authority of the husband remind me of the novel theory put forth by Scott Hahn (which may have been adopted by some advocates of theology of the body) that Adam failed to protect Eve from the serpent's temptation. (I've forgotten if Dr. Hahn explicitly identifies Adam's failure to defend Eve with original sin.) iirc, a more traditional understanding of Adam's fault as a husband lay in his failure to reject his wife's proposal and to correct her.
Scott Hahn (which may have been adopted by some advocates of theology of the body) ...Adam failed to protect Eve ...
These fellows are making it up as they go along. In these troubled times very few of us should be reading biblical commentary that is not written by a saint. The lessons and comments for Matins in the 1962 breviary or earlier, and a copy of The Epistle to Diognetes should be more than enough. For the more ambitious types maybe Dom Guerange's Liturgical Year.
Fear of God defended man and woman from the serpent's tales of temptation for quite some time. But alas, the medicine appears to have lost its effect.
It is a very important early dialogue of Plato, the Euthyphro. Socrates is registering with the court that will eventually condemn him to death for his impiety when he meets Euthyphro who is going to prosecute his father for an unintentional homicide of a slave who had killed another slave. When young Euthyphro learns of Meletus' charge against Socrates, he remarks that Meletus is destroying the city "from the hearth", that is, is striking at its vitals, but of course it is Euthyphro who is doing that by undermining the authority of fathers. I think this is probably a reflection of the historical Socrates, before Plato turned him into a more radical metaphysical and political thinker.
"destroying the city “from the hearth”, that is, is striking at its vitals, but of course it is Euthyphro who is doing that by undermining the authority of fathers."
Thank you, Dr. Fleming. That is precisely the one. It is also the dialogue that should be read more often in these times.
KDZ, Israel banned women in combat in 1948, ostensibly because of the fear of sexual molestation of captive female soldiers, and the fact that male soldiers would go to great lengths to prevent the female soldiers from being molested. It must also be surmised that Arab soldiers would fight with greater fanaticism when facing female soldiers rather than surrendering to them.
Mr. Leaberry--That sounds like the Israeli government banned women from combat before the Arab-Israeli War began. Whether it was that war or a later one, I believe the government in fact allowed women to fight in the early stages before deciding--in the middle of the war--that it was a very bad idea, and after that never let women fight again. (In any of the wars, the government may have suspended the original policy because of the emergency.)
In addition to the very sound reasons you mention for banning women from combat, I think it's unlikely that women can ever fare very well in old-fashioned warfare. For one thing, women are relationship-oriented in a way that would seem to make them psychologically unfit for seeing their buddies systematically slain in various terrible ways--it's hard enough on men, who have testosterone to help them through combat. I'm pretty sure that if enemy soldiers killed my buddies, I would be in a frenzy to kill enemy soldiers, while finding catharsis (of a sort) in killing them. I don't think many women are like that. There are some examples in history of individual women (not whole units of them, to the best of my knowledge) performing heroically in warfare, but these are exceptions that prove the rule.
From my reading of Morgan, he was simply mistaken but had no political ax to grind, but Marx and Engels had nothing but political axes, and bloody ones at that.
Man. That's a really great line, Dr. Fleming.
KDZ, the Israeli Army very quickly abandoned modern notions of sexual equality as the first Arab-Israeli War progressed. And I agree with everything you write in your second paragraph. In addition, if I may point out Dr. Fleming's thinking of the concept of women warriors that he wrote in Chronicles about a decade ago, no country that places its women in combat is worth fighting for in the first place.
Dr. Fleming writes: "And, let us not forget, that while it is a sin to take part in a duel, it was not necessarily a sin that could not be remedied by penance."
This point is banal. Every sin can be remedied by penance. Benedict XIV ruled that duellists were to be denied Christian burial even if they received absolution before death. Few ecclesiastical penalties could be worse.
Dr. Fleming further writes: "To challenge an innocent man to a duel is always wrong; to challenge a man to a duel when he has inadvertently harmed you or harmed you in a trivial sense, is wrong, but it cannot always be wrong for a man to fight a duel if the alternatives are grim, e.g., loss of protection for his family."
Pope Benedict XIV decreed otherwise in "Detestabilem." There are no alternatives which justify participating in a duel. If challenged to a duel, you must always decline, as it is murder. The Church very clearly and explicitly states that duelling is not some special case apart from other types of murder. Dr. Fleming states that it is wrong to challenge an innocent man to a duel. It is also wrong to challenge a guilty man. The Church has spoken. One can speak of extenuating circumstances, but these would simply amount to the force of the temptation. If one is placed by others in a grave occasion of sin, then one is less subjectively guilty, but the sin itself (be it murder, theft, adultery, etc.) is not thereby made less a sin; adultery-when-seduced is not a venial sin beside adultery-when-not-seduced. Similarly with duelling: it is *still* wrong, teaches the Church, for a man to participate in a duel in order to protect his family. For instance, Benedict XIV condemned this proposition: "A soldier would be blameless and not liable to punishment for sending or accepting a challenge if he would be considered timid and cowardly, worthy of contempt, and unfit for military duty, were he not to send a challenge or accept such, and who would for this reason lose the position which supported him and his family, or who would be obliged to give up forever the hope of befitting and well-earned advancement." Duelling for a good cause is still murder.
On the topic of condemning duelling as a primitive habit of barbarians, Pope Leo XIII did the same in Pastoralis Officii:
"8. Finally, the new age which boasts of far excelling previous ages in a more civilized culture and refinement of manners is wont to consider older institutions of little value and too often reject whatever differs from the character of the new elegance. Why is it that in its great zeal for civilization, it does not repudiate the base remnants of an uncouth age and foreign barbarism that we know as the custom of dueling?"