Feminism and Divorce

[Kaninchen]

Couldn’t it be said the the"natural’ paradigm of the “normal” homemaker has only shifted (as paradigms are wont to do) since the Beginning? If you want to go all the way back in history,** woman** was made to be man’s “helpmate”, right? Shouldn’t women, who are* naturally designed to be the childbearers, be the homemakers too? That seems like the** natural*** way… Obviously, not all women have been inclined or chosen or destined for this “office”, but most of us have.
And what’s this reference to “domestic drudgery”? If some women were/are oppressed systematically by a certain class of dominant men, that’s a real pity and a sin. But I think it more than a bit presumptuous to say that all women, therefore, have a seemingly ‘natural’ disdain for the “domestic arts”. In fact I would even be so bold as to say that the “normal” homemaker has sustained the whole balance of human development and ingenuity, through the centuries, by her sacrifice, nurture and*** truly*** feminine qualities, not to mention her maternal predilection.
Furthermore, it is one of the most privileged, and honorable vocations that women are* naturally* set apart, to be exalted for, along with so many other inherent gifts.
In all humility,*** this*** homemaker is most grateful for being given this beautiful blessing. (and I’m **still working on my "Master’s in the Domestic Arts" after 25 years!)

Well, if you think that hand/tub-washing for a large 19th century family (infant mortality having reduced), was anything other than drudgery! Of course it was.

As to the question of division of labor - who do you think was ‘looking after business’ while Jewish men have been spending their time studying and rowing over Torah for the last couple of thousand years and more?

What I’m suggesting is that the ‘natural’ is just a projection of a particular view of what the ‘natural’ should be.

To this Jewish wife and mother, it’s not ‘natural’ that it would be what is ‘natural’ to a Christian wife and mother.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Well, if you think that hand/tub-washing for a large 19th century family (infant mortality having reduced), was anything other than drudgery! Of course it was.

“Hard” work and drudgery are not necessarily synonymous terms.I like to refer to the chores as a “Labor of Love”. But I agree I have it much easier then in the days of wash boards…then again, my nine children own far more clothes then 19th century children.(at least those moms weren’t scaling “mount washmore” like we are in the third millennium.

As to the question of division of labor - who do you think was ‘looking after business’ while Jewish men have been spending their time studying and rowing over Torah for the last couple of thousand years and more?

That is one of the many reasons why I extolled the feminine “genius” in my previous post.

What I’m suggesting is that the ‘natural’ is just a projection of a particular view of what the ‘natural’ should be.

I would suggest, that perhaps the “natural” is a particular way of saying the “ideal”, which is a view, that many project their fears and disdain onto.

To this Jewish wife and mother, it’s not ‘natural’ that it would be what is ‘natural’ to a Christian wife and mother.

The only difference perhaps, would be the Christian ideal (really more of a Catholic one) that sacrifice has “salvific” value, for both the giver and the** receiver**, the*** Lover*** and the Beloved.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The only difference perhaps, would be the Christian ideal (really more of a Catholic one) that sacrifice has “salvific” value, for both the giver and the** receiver**, the*** Lover*** and the Beloved.

Actually, “sacrifice” is equally at home in both traditions. For example (highlighting added):

chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/825289/jewish/Sacrifice-of-the-Will.htm

Sacrifice of the Will
Sunday, February 1, 2009
By Benyamin Bresinger

The 10th day of the Hebrew month of Shevat is an auspicious day for two reasons. It is the yahrzeit of the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, as well as the anniversary of the day that our Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, officially accepted the mantle of leadership.

The previous Rebbe’s legacy is one of actual mesirut nefesh, self-sacrifice. Living in the Soviet Union, the previous Rebbe risked his life on a regular basis for the sake of Judaism. It was the Soviets who killed millions of people that they suspected of practicing Judaism – or being different in any way. The previous Rebbe would openly defy any attempt at comprising the Torah. He organized underground Jewish schools, sent clandestine ritual slaughterers to provide Kosher meat and assisted thousands with the performance of a Brit.

Our Rebbe assumed the leadership of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement while living in the United States (which he often called the “Kingdom of Kindness”). The U.S. was and is a place of freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and most importantly of all, freedom of religion. So, the Rebbe’s leadership was not one where actual self-sacrifice was needed. Nevertheless the Rebbe did bring about a revolution in Jewish life. Through his thousands of emissaries around the world, the Rebbe brought the light of Judaism and the practice of its principles to the farthest and darkest corners of the globe. He demanded of himself and his followers the sacrifice of will. There is no need to put aside our lives, but we need to put aside our will to do G-d’s will.

…]

We need to take this step continuously. Many times a day we stop, and ask G-d for guidance on what His will is for us. Whether G-d answers isn’t the point, the point is to get into the habit of checking ourselves. We pause and consider if what we want to do is what G-d wants us to do. That pause is an act of humility. It’s a holy moment, a moment that the angels are in awe of. Then we go ahead and do G-d’s will instead of our own, for this is the ultimate act of becoming a vehicle for our Creator. Let’s let ourselves be used by G-d because it’s the most useful thing we can do.

The Rebbe taught us that we should thank G-d that today we don’t have to sacrifice our lives – but more than ever we do have to sacrifice our will. We need to learn to put self-centeredness in its place. …] So, the next time that my alarm clock goes off, right there is my opportunity to put aside my will (go back to sleep) and do G-d’s will (get up). It becomes less about me and more about doing the right thing. It sounds so much easier than standing up to the Soviet Empire; yes, but this is a constant challenge that we are confronted with many times each day. It’s not as dramatic, but it is what G-d’s will is for us today.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

actually, “sacrifice” is equally at home in both traditions. For example (highlighting added): he demanded of himself and his followers the sacrifice of will. There is no need to put aside our lives, but we need to put aside our will to do g-d’s will.

…]

we need to take this step continuously. Many times a day we stop, and ask g-d for guidance on what his will is for us. Whether g-d answers isn’t the point, the point is to get into the habit of checking ourselves. We pause and consider if what we want to do is what g-d wants us to do. that pause is an act of humility. It’s a holy moment, a moment that the angels are in awe of. Then we go ahead and do g-d’s will instead of our own, for this is the ultimate act of becoming a vehicle for our creator. Let’s let ourselves be used by g-d because it’s the most useful thing we can do.

The rebbe taught us that we should thank g-d that today we don’t have to sacrifice our lives – but more than ever we do have to sacrifice our will. We need to learn to put self-centeredness in its place. …] so, the next time that my alarm clock goes off, right there is my opportunity to put aside my will (go back to sleep) and do g-d’s will (get up). it becomes less about me and more about doing the right thing. It sounds so much easier than standing up to the soviet empire; yes, but this is a constant challenge that we are confronted with many times each day. It’s not as dramatic, but it is what g-d’s will is for us today.

fabulous resource-thanks for the posting!

 

[Kaninchen]

“Hard” work and drudgery are not necessarily synonymous terms.I like to refer to the chores as a “Labor of Love”. But I agree I have it much easier then in the days of wash boards…then again, my nine children own far more clothes then 19th century children.(at least those moms weren’t scaling “mount washmore” like we are in the third millennium.

I have to say that I have absolutely no doubt which version I’d choose!

That is one of the many reasons why I extolled the feminine “genius” in my previous post.

I don’t know, I think of it as an inherited tradition (rather than trait) of just getting on with things.

I would suggest, that perhaps the “natural” is a particular way of saying the “ideal”, which is a view, that many project their fears and disdain onto.

Relative to a lot of other women and because of the nature of my profession and my husband’s income, when they went to school, I was able to ‘return’ and have a career ‘around’ my daughters (who were convinced early on that mummy just went to big school while they were at little school). I returned when I wanted to and because I wanted to. Meanwhile it’s often seemed to me that whatever antipathy that exists between the two ‘sides’ is manufactured - two sides of your ‘projection of fears and disdain’.

The only difference perhaps, would be the Christian ideal (really more of a Catholic one) that sacrifice has “salvific” value, for both the giver and the** receiver**, the*** Lover*** and the Beloved.

Perhaps, I was thinking more of the ‘Holy Family’ as an ideal and Mary as a model of self-sacrificial motherhood (but was she ‘doing the books’ at the furniture store while Joseph was at Shul, we ask ourselves!).

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Relative to a lot of other women and because of the nature of my profession and my husband’s income, when they went to school, I was able to ‘return’ and have a career ‘around’ my daughters (who were convinced early on that mummy just went to big school while they were at little school).

Cute!:kiss4you::curtsey: Since mine span over twenty years. I chose to work 3rd shift on the weekends at a nursing home, but because of my diabetes and sleep deprivation, I’m on a long hiatus.uch:

Perhaps, I was thinking more of the ‘Holy Family’ as an ideal and Mary as a model of self-sacrificial motherhood (but was she ‘doing the books’ at the furniture store while Joseph was at Shul, we ask ourselves!).

:byzsoc:Your insight, ideal and your “model” are all extraordinary proofs of our common attributes as women.
God bless you.

 

[ML561]

Grace and Peace to all of you. My husband and I married for the wrong reasons. We , sad to say, had sex before marriage and I became pregnant. Thinking it was the right thing to do, I married him, knowing that he was a serious anti-Catholic Protestant. Fights about religion became frequent, and alcohol abuse was also a factor. He would not let me go to Mass, he used our money to buy tracts from Jack Chick to distribute around his workplace, and insisted that I "obey’ him as the “spiritual head of the household.” We did divorce. My dilemma was that I felt I had to either marry this man or give my child up for adoption. He had me so confused that I almost left the Catholic Church. After the divorce I found my way back to the Church through a program sponsored by my home parish.

On another subject, I must disagree with posts which say that women’s education is simply directed toward financial goals. Are these people living in medieval times? I have worked at many jobs which paid little or nothing at all simply because I felt I was using my talents for the service of God or other people. Do you all want us veiled, confined in our houses, and forbidden to speak in public, therefore putting the talents God gave us under a bushel? Is “barefoot and pregnant” what we should be? No thanks. Look at the lives of some of the women who have been declared saints.St. Teresa of Avila, for one, and St. Catherine of Siena. They challenged the patriarchy. God gave me considerable talents and it would be wrong not to use them. I continue to further my education through classes taught through my parish on Apologetics, Social Justice, etc. These classes will most likely not help me financially, but they will do a great deal toward helping me become a better Catholic.

 

[Charlotte408]

I cant STAND feminists…and I’m a woman…

God grant me the strength and patience to deal with them…

 

[edwest2]

The radical feminists like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem came up in a period of time where respect for all views was more prevalent. Yet Miss Friedan said the family was “a comfortable concentration camp.” Miss Steinem said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Now, a concentration camp is a place where a person is put against their will and will likely die. The idea that men are useless is an extreme view.

Radical feminism did not address the very real problems that existed between men and women. Instead, it re-created women as an Eternal Victim Class. It re-created men as the Eternal Enemy Class. Love was not possible. Trust was not possible.

It recast dating, courtship, engagement and marriage as a Power Struggle, once again, excluding real love, real trust and real commitment. Instead of creating healthier marriages, it created Healthy Divorce, and lawyers, in the end, were the only ones who actually benefitted. It wasn’t until about the year 2000 that a study revealed that kids of divorce were harmed. Apparently, the tears of anguish that appeared in the 1980s went unrecognized and uninterpreted – the kids were crying but no one officially knew why.

Today, true love has been replaced by ‘just sex.’ And for those who don’t believe in such behavior, there is a lack of hope for finding someone interested in real commitment and real understanding before the ceremony.

For those infected by the totally false idea that the 1950s was inhabited solely by barefoot and pregnant moms who did little else except cook and clean – I’ve got news. The average number of kids was two. My mom and every other mom in the neighborhood stayed home to help raise their own kids, not some day-care center. And no, it was not perfect but it was a great deal better than what exists today. Much better.

The fear, mistrust and suspicion created by the Women’s Liberation movement contributed to bringing Western Society to this point. I don’t know if young people even know what dating really means. They get sex education but it appears that they get no relationship education.

Once again, radical feminism was not solution oriented. It did not bring the sexes together but helped drive them apart.

Peace,
Ed

 

[KBT]

Yes, a concerted effort by Radical Feminists led to a greater divorce rate and the disruption of the proper relationship between men and women. Let’s review:

1960 Introduction of the Birth Control Pill.

mid-1960s Betty Friedan writes The Feminine Mystique. She also refers to the family as a “comfortable concentration camp.”

1968 The turning point. The Catholic Church publishes Humani Generis. In this encyclical, the Pope tells the faithful, if you use artificial birth control, you will be more tempted to cheat on the love of your life, and to devalue the love of your life. The Church is aware that some people think The Pill will allow them to have sex without consequences.

Send in the Hippies. Free love! Sex with anyone. Down with the Establishment! Mom, dad, priests, nuns, they don’t know anything. We’ll burn this country down!

The Sexual Revolution was about sex, not love. Us Catholics were constantly told we were “sexually repressed.” A few of the Hippies started living with their girlfriends. They stopped listening to their parents.

1970s So-called Adult Bookstores appear everywhere. Porn is legal so it must be OK. Topless go-go bars are approved thanks to high priced lawyers going to court for the owners and arguing “freedom of expression.”

Adultery and fornication are now relabeled Swinging.

1973 It’s OK to kill the baby in the womb. Have compassion, we were told, for victims of rape and incest and for women who would die from back alley abortions. Even God was mentioned. “The most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make which is between her and her God.” Where is God in the equation now?

1978 Gloria Steinem of the National Organization for Women and publisher of Ms. magazine yells, “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Men are the eternal enemy now. The patriarchal culture has got to go. Men are called “male chauvenist pigs.” A sense of fear, mistrust and suspicion is given to every woman in the United States.

Which laid the groundwork for No-Fault Divorce to complete its sweep of the United States in the

1980s Porn on cable. I open the newspaper and it’s filled with classified ads: "No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.

Rising property values during this time forced both parents to work. As Catholics got the false idea that their problems could be disposed of – baby, husband – they began to imitate the world more and more.

Today, Gloria Steinem’s name appears on a document promoting multiple conjugal partners and calling it marriage. This was all planned. Men and women were manipulated. We were lied to. We were led astray. At first, we trusted some of these people. It was a big mistake. Now is the time to fix it.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

I must say that was an absolutely succint, on-target synopsis of what happened in our country in the last 40 years. It was also very funny, forgive me if that offends you. It’s just that truth and humor are intertwined sometimes and you did that well!!! I am sorry I did not read your post sooner.I have had very few instances in my life where I have actually heard people speak out against all that has happened in our country. As a forty year old child of divorce, I ended up turning to my faith, and eventually converting to Catholicism to heal the absolulte hell I was in. The destruction of my family was a major contributing factor, and the amazing thing, when I look back was that everyone around me was convinced it was for the better. Thank you, Ed!

 

[edwest2]

KBT-

You’re welcome. I’m glad it brought you closer to God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

Once again, radical feminism was not solution oriented. It did not bring the sexes together but helped drive them apart.

As opposed to morose (often inaccurate and highly partial) droning which is supposed to achieve what, exactly?

 

[Sugabee43]

In classical feminism (i.e., the feminism of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, etc.,), it was really about the right to vote and to improve the lives of women so that they could not be abused. Virtually all of the suffragettes were against abortion and infanticide precisely because it treated children like property and therefore would allow women to be treated as property. The radical feminist movement of the latter era took great pains to disguise the pro-life bent of the early suffragettes. Alice Paul, the original author of the ERA, in her later years turned in her membership to the NOW because they were so pro-abortion. She said, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

I say all of this because I think the classical feminists were not advocating divorce, abortion, or birth control. They were advocating vote for women, and equal rights under the law.

feministsforlife.org is a secular organization, but they promote classical feminism and the hopes that our society will stop treating pregnant women like second-class citizens and allow them to have their children without giving up careers or education.

 

[edwest2]

Who treats pregnant women like second-class citizens? And in the cases of consensual sex, where is the man? The woman did not get pregnant by herself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sugabee43]

In former years, it was much more the case. My point is that classical feminism did not advocate divorce, abortion and other anti-family, anti-life issues. It wasn’t until the “sexual revolution” of the '60’s that the feminist movement became so rabidly pro-abortion.

In alot of cases of single women becoming pregnant, their boyfriends abandon them or do not support them and so they feel they have to choose between their babies and, say, finishing college or ‘moving up the ladder’. An unfortunate number choose the latter instead of the former.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

As opposed to morose (often inaccurate and highly partial) droning which is supposed to achieve what, exactly?

Perhaps a ‘platform to vent’…a ‘public rebuke’ of the things that have so drained the life’s-blood of the human family, which have led so many to abandon-in despair-their personal dignity for these counterfeit “freedoms”. Sometimes we have a need to** expose the lies** and present the overwhelming evidence of why we find ourselves in the present state of cultural demise that we now do. But only in order to repair… restore…and to rebuild "a new civilization of life and love…" to quote the late “great” Pope John Paul II, whose prophetic vision breathes hope still. Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has taken up the cry…as he leads us, through faith, in “Christ our Hope”, it is put within our grasp, and inspires our heartfelt response.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps a ‘platform to vent’…a ‘public rebuke’ of the things that have so drained the life’s-blood of the human family, which have led so many to abandon-in despair-their personal dignity for these counterfeit “freedoms”. Sometimes we have a need to** expose the lies** and present the overwhelming evidence of why we find ourselves in the present state of cultural demise that we now do. But only in order to repair… restore…and to rebuild "a new civilization of life and love…" to quote the late “great” Pope John Paul II, whose prophetic vision breathes hope still. Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has taken up the cry…as he leads us, through faith, in “Christ our Hope”, it is put within our grasp, and inspires our heartfelt response.

Well, yes, I guess “Me, Too!” threads have their purpose, as do “Ain’t it awful!” threads and “Misery loves company,” threads but ‘public rebuke’ threads are another matter.

The problem with publicly rebuking is that it only really works if the people who you’re publicly rebuking are around to be rebuked and, if they are, take you seriously enough to feel, in some way, rebuked.

Not only that . . . but . . . it’s also all a good way of avoiding having to think about, to borrow a title from Lenin, “What is to be done?”

 

[Charlotte408]

There are two statements which cut to the core of the feminist ideology, and I’d like to lay them out here in case an interested reader would like to discuss them:

The first involves presumptions of guilt and the second involves the moral principle of universality. Both of these are important because the feminist attitude towards each illustrates my contention that one can be a feminist or one can believe in such things as justice and morality, but one cannot do both. And this is ironic, as feminists see themselves as on the side as justice and morality.

First: a presumption of innocence is at the foundation of our system of justice. As a society, we tend to believe that jailing an innocent person is worse than letting 10 guilty people go free and if a person is accused of a crime, then the accuser must carry a burden of proof-- a preponderance of evidence-- to show “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accusation is true.

And unfortunately, as near as I can figure, feminists think this is b*st. When dealing with men, I mean.

There is, undergirding all feminist discourse, a presumption of male guilt. This becomes especially obvious when we look at items like the 2007 Duke University rape hoax, in which feminists proclaimed the guilt of accused rapists, even in the face of a mountain evidence that the accusation was false. This also becomes clear when we look at the suspicion that female feminists cast upon male feminists, who are often placed into a position where they must try to prove their innocence. The feminist notion of justice, then, is fundamentally hostile to justice in the sense that you and I think of it.

The other side of the feminist presumption of male guilt is the amazingly robust presumption of innocence placed upon women, which is even done in the face of evidence that a woman is guilty of a vicious crime. The resulitng gullibility goes beyond believing false charges leveled against men, but also extends to believing lame defenses offered by women who are found guilty.

To give one example of the latter, Phyllis Chesler, (a well-known feminist author) made numerous public defences of Aileen Wuornos, a Canadian prostitute/serial killer who was jailed in 1990 (you may have seen the movie Monster). Chesler claimed that abuse at the hands of her various Johns made Wuornos snap and go on a rampage. Well, it turns-out that Wuornos herself, in 2002, disavowed Chesler’s infantilizing contention from her jail-cell.

I can give other examples if you like.

In short, in the feminist paradigm, determining the guilt or innocence of an accused party requires you to look at their crotch and go no further. In my view, this is hostile to basic notions of justice.

A second key problem is the principle of universality. This may sound like an arcane notion, but it’s at the basis of many moral systems, going back thousands of years.

And it’s extremely simple: If something’s right for me to do, it’s right for you to do; if it’s wrong for you to do, it’s wrong for me to do.

Feminists, as near as I can figure, feel that this is inappropriate because it fails to account for women being a mass of pathetic victims (in their view).

Since a redistributive system is needed-- punishing men, empowering women-- outright double-standards are therefore justifiable.

In short: if you’re a woman, you have a blank check to do whatever you want. You can lie, cheat, steal, anything. It’s all justifiable. But it’s outrageous for a man to approach 1/10th the same level and you’re free to erupt in anger at his effrontery.

Normal people, people with a moral compass, would find that belief to be chlidish, laughable, self-exculpatory and opportunistic. But if you don’t believe me, check-out the leading feminist web-sites some time.

I AM a woman…and even I can see right through the feminist lies and inconsistencies…

 

[Sugabee43]

I again refer to my previous post that classical feminism, which is trying to be revived by Feminists for Life, is the ‘best of both worlds’. It realizes woman’s life-giving capacity is something to be cherished, yet not used to hold her down educationally or in her career.

 

[Kaninchen]

I AM a woman…and even I can see right through the feminist lies and inconsistencies…

Seems to me that you, obviously, share (your picture of) a feminist’s gift for massive generalization. Instead of ‘all men’ being very, very naughty, ‘all feminists’ are very, very, very naughty.

On the other hand, they might just be strawmen and strawfeminists.

Wasn’t Wuornos an American?