Harrison Butker | Commencement Address 2024

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I know my saying this will surprise no one, but you're not coming off well in this exchange, Dill. One wonders why you're persisting.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(05-22-2024, 01:44 PM)pally Wrote: Harrison Butker represents pre 1962 Catholicism, the church before Vatican ii

Absolutely a Bingo on that.

Super late to the party, but I hope many of you realise this is a wholly-American thing: in super-Catholic countries like Italy, France Spain, Portugal, Philippines, etc., not only are there not, "Catholic Unviersities," (I mean, there are private ones that are like an extension of Catholic High School, but not in the same way as American ones) but they don't have commencement speeches and they don't have people foisting their ideals on graduating students.

This is such a goofy, weird thing, like Proms, Homecoming, bastardized pizza and red solo cups.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-07-2024, 12:37 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL of course I'm "who i am." Who isn't? Aren't you who you are? 

"More labels"?  "Predictible" = repeating "you do you." 

It sounds like, suddenly, you have a problem with labels.

We may revisit that in future posts to "be better." 

We're all rooting  for you!

[Dill]

(06-07-2024, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know my saying this will surprise no one, but you're not coming off well in this exchange, Dill.  One wonders why you're persisting.

Maybe if I substituted memes for arguments? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-08-2024, 02:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Maybe if I substituted memes for arguments? 

You are letting them get under your skin. Shake it off, ignore and move on. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2024, 02:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Maybe if I substituted memes for arguments? 

Just telling you what I saw, do with it as you will.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-04-2024, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Seems you missed my point.  Laws are based on value judgments, what you are calling "opinion." When enough people support an opinion, they can make it a law. E.g., if enough people think slavery is wrong, they can abolish it. If not enough, then it is not abolished. If enough people want women's roles in society curtailed, they can put their opinion into law.

So when the number of people using their platform to sway opinion increases, and that opinion goes counter to women's equality, then it is rational for people who support equality to be concerned about what that trend means, whether enough "opinions" will be changed to bring back older laws--as was recently attempted in Arizona. 

Do you agree, then, that Butker's speech signals resistance to change?

He attacked women's equality by advancing that notion that women, unlike men, have a "natural" role which supersedes everything else they might accomplish. That doesn't "piss [you] off" because you do n't share the views on women's equality which I "hold dear to [my] heart."  

Apparently quite a few people agree with HB's stance and not yours, and he did not attack women.

He did attack the LGTBQ community and Biden, and his reasons are religious based, but you've never made that the biggest part of your argument, it's always he attacked the women and wants to send us back to the dark ages. 


Harrison Butker's jersey becomes Chiefs' best-seller after controversial commencement speech

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/harrison-butkers-jersey-becomes-chiefs-best-seller-after-controversial-commencement-speech/

Harrison Butker currently has the top-selling jersey on the Kansas City Chiefs following the controversial statements he made during a recent commencement speech at Benedictine College. As of Friday afternoon, sales of the veteran kicker's jersey are even outpacing those of teammates Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, according to the official NFL Shop.

Listed among the "Top Sellers" on the official website, Butker's No. 7 jersey has gotten quite a bump after the kicker's polarizing remarks. CBS Sports has reached out to the NFL about the specific sales numbers.

The portion of Butker's commencement speech that got the most backlash were the comments he made about women being sold "diabolical lies" regarding their professional careers.

"I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you," Butker said. "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 her life truly started when she started living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."


The wide-ranging speech covered a number of other hot-button topics as well, including what Butker referred to as "dangerous gender ideologies," COVID-19 and abortion.


"The bad policies and poor leadership have negatively impacted major life issues," Butker said. "Things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for the degenerate cultural values and media all stem from pervasiveness of disorder."


Jonathan Beane, the NFL's senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, issued a statement to CBS News about Butker's speech. "Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity," Beane said. "His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger." 

GLAAD also issued a statement, and said Butker's speech "a clear miss" and "woefully out of step with Americans about Pride, LGBTQ people and women," alluding to Butker's suggestion that Pride Month, which is June, celebrates a "deadly sin."


While Butker got criticized for the speech, he also received support from Tavia Hunt, the wife of Chiefs owner Clark Hunt. In a post on Instagram, Tavia Hunt backed up Butker's view on motherhood. "Affirming motherhood and praising your wife, as well as highlighting the sacrifice and dedication it takes to be a mother, is not bigoted," she wrote.

[Dill]

(06-08-2024, 02:15 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You are letting them get under your skin. Shake it off, ignore and move on. 

Hang in there OtherMike. I've been working on a response to your last post, for a couple of days. 

You've been putting up some worthy arguments; sometimes that takes a bit more time to address.

Now I have to account for #167 as well.

[Dill]

(06-07-2024, 01:35 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Absolutely a Bingo on that.

Super late to the party, but I hope many of you realise this is a wholly-American thing: in super-Catholic countries like Italy, France Spain, Portugal, Philippines, etc., not only are there not, "Catholic Unviersities," (I mean, there are private ones that are like an extension of Catholic High School, but not in the same way as American ones) but they don't have commencement speeches and they don't have people foisting their ideals on graduating students.

This is such a goofy, weird thing, like Proms, Homecoming, bastardized pizza and red solo cups.

LOL That speech is a mishmash of conflated untruths and conceptual errors with many targets--not just feminism and equality. 

What do you make of this "ideal?-- 

We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority. Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.

Who committed deicide--Romans or "the Jews"? And what bill? What Bible? Could I be jailed for saying "the Italians" crucified Jesus? 

Many of "the Catholics" take issue with Butker's "casual antisemtism." Apparently including the Church hierachy.
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/casual-dangerous-antisemitism-harrison-butkers-commencement-speech

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 07:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Good Point about kids responding to messages from authority figures, except these aren't kids. 
Again, he said SOME will have successful careers, which means they have a choice in how they live their lives.
There will always be backlash at something, No one or situation is ever perfect. How is it a backlash to being a mother? 
Being a Mother or Father is way more important than any accolade i could get from working. 

So OMike, back to our business.

Women DO have a choice nowdays. But no thanks to Butker or the traditionalists he represents. 

Apropos kids responding to messages--so do adults, throughout their lives. Let me add a bit to your thunbnail history of women's rights.

You remember Rosie the Riveter, right? During WWII, as men went off to war, women went into the work force and performed very well. Society reflected this message from a number of points, including government. My mother-in-law was a riveter in Seattle, building bombers for Boeing, expanding the range of work for which women could be recognized, and their by their potential gender roles.



Apropos your "backlash" comment above, after the war, as the men came home, there was a concerted effort amongst many different persons and institutions to get women back into the home, and back into their traditional roles. We see it partly in areas like heavy industry and education, but it is especially clear in advertising and popular culture. Women were routinely represented as less competent than men, as in this 1953 Alcoa Aluminum ad.


Women's magazines took the lead in this, outlining the role of housewife for young married women. Notice how man-centric that role is in this 1955 piece below from Housekeeping Monthly: listen to him, make the evening is his, don't ask why he is late or question his judgment-- and KNOW YOUR PLACE.  In university admissions as well as the job market, this image of woman's REAL role choked off access. Wages and the law reflected this assumption about the real place of women.

The feminist revolution of the '60s and 70s was a backlash against public affirmation of this traditional role. Those who value women's equality should recognize who won it and from whom. And now, in Butker's speech and the Daily Mail link you provided we are seeing a backlash to feminism and the advance of women's rights. But thanks to feminism, blatant submission is less acceptable. But the underlying message is the same--woman's place is in the home, serving her man as wife and mother. And if enough people agree, access--choice--will close off again.

So that's why I'm not happy to hear of a surge in sales of Butker's jersey. If, as you say, there will always be a backlash to something, we have the power of deciding to which backlash we contribute. I choose to contest this one.

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 07:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He attacked women's equality by advancing that notion that women, unlike men, have a "natural" role which supersedes everything else they might accomplish. That doesn't "piss [you] off" because you don't share the views on women's equality which I "hold dear to [my] heart."  
And I agree, plenty of people who do not agree with my views on women's equality would not like what I had to say either. They'd be the people who don't see women as fully equal to men.  And all religious people do not think like Butker does. Not even all Catholic women, and not even all women in Catholic orders, as Pally's link to the Benedictine Sisters objection shows. 

There was absolutely nothing degrading towards women in his speech, in fact he praised his wife for what she gave up to be home with their children, unfortunately both parents can't afford to be home. He's against abortion, but that's *gasps* because he's religious. 

Does he NOT say that women's thoughts about careers and so forth were the consequence of "diabolical lies"? Surely that degrades life choices based on those lies?  How could that NOT be so?  Aren't women orienting their lives to careers outside the home among those things we are supposed to stop "pretending" are normal? 

Sure, he praises his wife for what she gives up. The Housekeeping Monthly article cited above guides women to "praiseworthy" behavior based on giving up any sense of a separate self.

And Butker isn't just against abortion. He appears to be against any form of birth control.

(06-05-2024, 07:16 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do you agree that being a parent is better than any job you could have in this world or not? 

I would say "important" is a better word here than "better."  Parenting is centrally important to reproducing decent, civilized society for
sure. Too important to leave to one sex while the other is tasked with bringing order to the world. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2024, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I would say "important" is a better word here than "better."  Parenting is centrally important to reproducing decent, civilized society for
sure. Too important to leave to one sex while the other is tasked with bringing order to the world. 

I concur.  I would also add that having no father in the home is the best predictor or whether a child becomes involved with the criminal justice system.  There have also been studies that strongly show that children raised in single parent households headed by a father do significantly better than homes headed by the mother.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-09-2024, 11:41 AM)Dill Wrote: So OMike, back to our business.

Women DO have a choice nowdays. But no thanks to Butker or the traditionalists he represents. 

Apropos kids responding to messages--so do adults, throughout their lives. Let me add a bit to your thunbnail history of women's rights.

You remember Rosie the Riveter, right? During WWII, as men went off to war, women went into the work force and performed very well. Society reflected this message from a number of points, including government. My mother-in-law was a riveter in Seattle, building bombers for Boeing, expanding the range of work for which women could be recognized, and their by their potential gender roles.



Apropos your "backlash" comment above, after the war, as the men came home, there was a concerted effort amongst many different persons and institutions to get women back into the home, and back into their traditional roles. We see it partly in areas like heavy industry and education, but it is especially clear in advertising and popular culture. Women were routinely represented as less competent than men, as in this 1953 Alcoa Aluminum ad.


Women's magazines took the lead in this, outlining the role of housewife for young married women. Notice how man-centric that role is in this 1955 piece below from Housekeeping Monthly: listen to him, make the evening is his, don't ask why he is late or question his judgment-- and KNOW YOUR PLACE.  In university admissions as well as the job market, this image of woman's REAL role choked off access. Wages and the law reflected this assumption about the real place of women.

The feminist revolution of the '60s and 70s was a backlash against public affirmation of this traditional role. Those who value women's equality should recognize who won it and from whom. And now, in Butker's speech and the Daily Mail link you provided we are seeing a backlash to feminism and the advance of women's rights. But thanks to feminism, blatant submission is less acceptable. But the underlying message is the same--woman's place is in the home, serving her man as wife and mother. And if enough people agree, access--choice--will close off again.

So that's why I'm not happy to hear of a surge in sales of Butker's jersey. If, as you say, there will always be a backlash to something, we have the power of deciding to which backlash we contribute. I choose to contest this one.

We've moved waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past all of that Dill. Women have so many more rights than they did in that time frame. We aren't returning to despite what you want us to believe.

There was nothing in his speech advocating for a return to this, only that people put emphasis on FAMILY raising their kids. 

You are basically being a Doomsday sayer

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-09-2024, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Does he NOT say that women's thoughts about careers and so forth were the consequence of "diabolical lies"? Surely that degrades life choices based on those lies?  How could that NOT be so?  Aren't women orienting their lives to careers outside the home among those things we are supposed to stop "pretending" are normal? 

Sure, he praises his wife for what she gives up. The Housekeeping Monthly article cited above guides women to "praiseworthy" behavior based on giving up any sense of a separate self.

And Butker isn't just against abortion. He appears to be against any form of birth control.


I would say "important" is a better word here than "better."  Parenting is centrally important to reproducing decent, civilized society for
sure. Too important to leave to one sex while the other is tasked with bringing order to the world. 

Again, no he does not, the Diabolical lies are what you perceive them, i perceive them differently. I see it more as he's talking about how people have been told to be selfish. You can't be selfish when it comes to children. That's my view about his diabolical lies. We can argue it all day, but only he knows what he means by that. 

If the wife feels like she's dependent, then she can make a different choice. He's not preventing anyone from doing what's best for themselves. 

He's religious, probably doesn't believe in Pre-Martial sex, that's fine, it's his belief, but BC will always be available. 

IDGAF what word you use. 

So you are saying  your children are important, but they are not your world and you wouldn't do anything for them? RIGHT... I guess that explains your viewpoint. And here i thought it was supposed to be R's that don't like kids. Add this to the fact that you DIDN"T have the Obey removed from your wife's martial vows, isn't exactly coming off as someone that puts equality and family first. Lemme guess, you probably worry more about how Immigrant Border crossing Minors are treated than your own? 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-09-2024, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL That speech is a mishmash of conflated untruths and conceptual errors with many targets--not just feminism and equality. 

What do you make of this "ideal?-- 

We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority. Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.

Who committed deicide--Romans or "the Jews"? And what bill? What Bible? Could I be jailed for saying "the Italians" crucified Jesus? 

Many of "the Catholics" take issue with Butker's "casual antisemtism." Apparently including the Church hierachy.
https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/casual-dangerous-antisemitism-harrison-butkers-commencement-speech

great points!

I think it is pretty fair to say that the Jews were the ones that sentencedJesus to death: the Romans simply carried out the sentence.

Think of it like a modern-day trial: the Romans were law enforcement and Pilate was the judge.

Who was the jury? Exactly. What actually went down will never be fully, 100% known, but if the bible is anything to go by, then yes, the Jews handed the Romans the gun, so they could pull the trigger.

And as a Catholic, I have 0 issues with Jews (save for what is going on over there right now: both sides are at fault and both sides should stop, but this is a very nuanced Sitch and I'm not qualified to speak more than just my opinion on the matter) and the past is the past; get over it

My ancestral home and the family itself for that matter, was bombed and heavily destroyed in WW1: do I hate Germans/Turks/Hungarians? Not in the slightest. Stuff that you have 0 control over, should be moved on from; if Butker wants to hate the Jews and treat his wife like it's pre-1900, then by all means, he can do so behind closed doors.

But it's 2024 and the world has VASTLY changed: he doesn't have to like it, but he better deal with it. As Tony Soprano said, "you don't love me anymore? Well that breaks my heart. You don't have to love me... But you will respect me!"

And backtracking to what you said about the church having issues with the antisemitism, well, if they go by the Bible, then it IS something that any follower should have issues with. The Bible AND Jesus clearly state that we need to love one another, be there for for your neighbour, forget about possessions and money and worry about bettering the lives of people around you, as service to others is always the winning formula and regardless of race, creed, religion, status, etc., we should all be treated the same and that is with respect and decency...

... But the bible is full of hypocrisies and there is no doubt that for everything I wrote above, some, "Christian," will pull some random quote from the old Testament (or Deuteronicals) to refute what I wrote above, not seeing their own hypocrisy of the fact that even though they may be antisemitic, a (or many) JEW(s) wrote those books and not a Christian (which I'm sure they would refute as well, despite having 0 proof).

I'll always maintain that the good, moral, "just feels proper" part of religion is still inherently fantastic and that these, "teachings," (if you want to call them that) should be adhered to by all, as they are universal truths and have to do with just general common sense and natural law.

That's why I will always be a believer in the Catholic faith, until the day I die.

But when certain people twist and abuse those words to fit their own sense of morality (and not a universally correct/proper mentality, as is written in that book), that's when idiots like Butker show that the world (well, Americans, actually; you guys ruin everything and yes, I know I'm generalizing, but you know what I mean) is still far too backwards and ignorant to ever evolve and be better.

[Dill]

(06-10-2024, 02:17 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: And backtracking to what you said about the church having issues with the antisemitism, well, if they go by the Bible, then it IS something that any follower should have issues with. The Bible AND Jesus clearly state that we need to love one another, be there for for your neighbour, forget about possessions and money and worry about bettering the lives of people around you, as service to others is always the winning formula and regardless of race, creed, religion, status, etc., we should all be treated the same and that is with respect and decency...

Well, I'd say the New Testament says we should love one another, forget about possessions and money, etc.

The Old Testament says it's good to kill Philistines, witches, gays and adulterers.

Odd that the Catholic Church has, since WWII, made such an effort to denounce antisemitism, especially the root cause of
blaming them for Jesus death, but Butker has somehow missed that.

[Dill]

(06-09-2024, 07:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Does he NOT say that women's thoughts about careers and so forth were the consequence of "diabolical lies"? Surely that degrades life choices based on those lies?  How could that NOT be so?  Aren't women orienting their lives to careers outside the home among those things we are supposed to stop "pretending" are normal? 

Again, no he does not, the Diabolical lies are what you perceive them, i perceive them differently. I see it more as he's talking about how people have been told to be selfish. You can't be selfish when it comes to children. That's my view about his diabolical lies. We can argue it all day, but only he knows what he means by that. 

If "only he knows what he means" then Butker is a very poor communicator. And his words are just Rorschach blots, of no value to anyone.

But I say we can go by what it SOUNDS LIKE he means when he says "ladies" instead of "people."

If he is addressing "people" then why is he at pains to single out the "ladies" as target of "diabolical lies"? Here are his own words:

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.

He does not say "people" have had "the most diabolical lies told you." Or men. It is not "people" he expects to be excited about marriage and children. Or men. It is the young women who have been "lied" to.

So what are the "diabolical lies"? Why mention them if not to correct them in the next sentence? Marriage and children are the "ladies" real career. The "lie" was that women can find real satisfaction in careers.  

To get your interpretation of this passage, I'd have to believe he meant "people" when he went to great pains to single out "ladies." And I'd have to believe the "lies" were about people in general. Men too have been lied to etc. Not just women.

Seems to me you don't want to grant that he said what he said, so you are telling me he really meant something other than the words he chose, and the difference between our views on what he said are a matter of "perception" and not actual words on the page like "ladies" or "women." 

[Dill]

(06-09-2024, 07:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I would say "important" is a better word here than "better."  Parenting is centrally important to reproducing decent, civilized society for
sure. Too important to leave to one sex while the other is tasked with bringing order to the world.

IDGAF what word you use. 

So you are saying  your children are important, but they are not your world and you wouldn't do anything for them? RIGHT... I guess that explains your viewpoint. And here i thought it was supposed to be R's that don't like kids. Add this to the fact that you DIDN"T have the Obey removed from your wife's martial vows, isn't exactly coming off as someone that puts equality and family first. Lemme guess, you probably worry more about how Immigrant Border crossing Minors are treated than your own? 

This seems a bit scattershot O-mike. 

E.g., I told you I didn't remember directly what was said in my marriage vows. That was near 50 years ago. So it's not a "fact" that the word "obey" wasn't removed. And right after I'd flagged the priest at pre-canna for claiming partnerships are equal when the husband has the final, say it is not likely I'd have accepted vows in which she, alone, was the one vowing to obey. 

Somehow you twisted saying children are "too important to leave for one sex" and parenting is centrally important to reproducing civilized society into not liking kids.

And I thought we were talking about parenting in general, but from my words you infer MY children were not my world and I wouldn't do anything for them. So I must worry more about immigrant children. 

And all of this talk about "border crossing minors" and my marriage vows just seems deflection from Butker's assumption marriage and family are "ladies" accomplishments. 

Like if WE agree our children are the most important things in our lives, then Butker must have meant "people" instead of "ladies."

[Mike M (the other one)]

Definitely YOUR perception vs mine.
We won't see Eye to Eye on it cause I'm more open minded about other people's views, whether they are right or wrong and not going to nit pick over specific wording.

I see it as putting Family first over everything else, you see it as putting Men over Women. It's his opinion, your perception.

The sad part is, you fail to acknowledge that there are TONS of women that have successful careers that CHOSE to stop working and stay home with their children. Those women that choose that life, are just keeping the rest down right? they should stop worrying about their kids and let someone else take care of them while they go back to work and earn those accolades, whatever.

And not buying the part where you say you don't remember, it's not like being asked what shoes you had on, If it was important, then that would have been one detail you would have remembered. I was married over 30 years ago and still remember that.

[Dill]

(06-13-2024, 02:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Definitely YOUR perception vs mine.
We won't see Eye to Eye on it cause I'm more open minded about other people's views, whether they are right or wrong and not going to nit pick over specific wording.
I see it as putting Family first over everything else, you see it as putting Men over Women. It's his opinion, your perception.
The sad part is, you fail to acknowledge that there are TONS of women that have successful careers that CHOSE to stop working and stay home with their children. Those women that choose that life, are just keeping the rest down right? they should stop worrying about their kids and let someone else take care of them while they go back to work and earn those accolades, whatever.
And not buying the part where  you say you don't remember, it's not like being asked what shoes you had on, If it was important, then that would have been one detail you would have remembered. I was married over 30 years ago and still remember that.

So I lied about not remembering? You've decided the guy who defends women's rights didn't alter a marriage vow as you expected, regardless of what he says?  Not clear how any of this relates to what Butker said or intended. It just seems you are fishing for a way to disparage my character, like that would make my text-based argument somehow wrong. Speculating about whether and how I value immigrant kids fits that category as well.

To repeat, it's not my "perception" that he directed his remark about diabolical lies to the "ladies." 

It is also not my "perception" that after prioritizing marriage and children for women, he next addressed men, saying their job
was to go out into the world and restore order.

And I don't believe you "perceive" words other than the ones quoted. You DECIDED that Butker meant "people" even though he said "women."
Just as when he sets different roles for men and women, you DECIDED he really just means "family first." 

My "perception" fits the words as written; yours fits the words you substituted for his.

I responded to your DM Link about women giving up careers and returning home. That is acknowledging that women do give up careers to become housewives. So why do you say the "the sad part is, you fail to acknowledge that there are TONS of women that have successful careers that CHOSE to stop working . ."? What evidence is there that I don't acknowledge that? And how does that refute or affect my claim that Butker was advocating for traditional gender roles which undermine women's equality?