Feminism and fetishization of women

[AdamP88]

If you read more of her articles though you’d see that they are rife with error and opinion dressed up as fact. Also a huge amount of representing certain gender roles as God given and unchangeable. It’s unfortunate that people will read this and accept it as what the Church actually says.

 

[Sarcelle]

I was at University long before the mass use of social media and this Marxist form of feminism was already alive and flourishing especially in academia.

Now I was in the STEM field so my exposure was limited but my friends in the social sciences were especially affected.

 

[Sarcelle]

One good thing about being Catholic is that you can take everyone of these bloggers with a grain of salt. When in doubt read up on the Catechism, on the encyclicals or feel free to talk to a priest.

Keep in mind that these bloggers are not the Magisterium so they do not have the authority to claim something like the education of women as sin.

 

[adgloriam]

representing certain gender roles as God given

This is one thing I have not been able to entirely resolve, the bible does divide certain gender roles and the papal encyclicals have done the same (I can’t get over what JPII said about it). What does seem sound, in a way, are certain practices (gender-roles) studied by anthropology that are almost (biblical) and I sometimes wonder how much one could take from that, especially if you’re in a modern society that has not yet put away completely with ethnicity and the traditional gender-roles that still manages to hold.

 

[AdamP88]

Or a whole bag of salt even.

It’s not myself I’m worried about. I studied a fair amount of theology in my degree and can spot the more dubious things. But there are people who believe this nonsense.

 

[adgloriam]

But there are people who believe this nonsense.

That is what causes me some repulse, that certain news-outlets label themselves as being catholic and then publish unsound material - that is misleading and liable to confuse.

 

[Sarcelle]

How much further do you want to break down the roles?

Some roles are obvious. In marriage the woman plays the role of wife and the man plays the role of husband.

Now who is supposed to do the cooking and who is supposed to take out the garbage? At this point, it depends on the couple.
Frankly I don’t think the Church cares.

 

[AdamP88]

That’s why the author was banned from CAF. That and her tendency to be a bit aggressive towards the members here.
Pity she wouldn’t follow her own feminine ideal. Lol

 

[adgloriam]

That’s why the author was banned from CAF.

In chess exists “forced error”. An error in your action that was objectively provoked by an adversary. Fact is, looking back at some of the suspensions I’ve seen, many had other users provoking the one that got suspended. And, at one point, I know there were a few fake profiles chasing me around several threads trying to provoke an error on my part.

 

[AdamP88]

I wouldn’t have banned her myself purely because I found her amusing. I sometimes read her blog when I need a good laugh. But I can completely understand why she was banned.

 

[adgloriam]

How much further do you want to break down the roles?

Frankly I don’t think the Church cares.

I would go towards basic notions like keeping family union between the couple. The first sure tell sign something is wrong is division caused by factors exterior to the couple - and that is always the first thing someone opposing the relationship will try to cause and probe for.

So, perhaps the first gender role I’d mention is the primacy of the woman (where it pertains) in protecting the couple from the outside.

 

[Rhubarb]

So is he talking about first wave feminism, second wave feminism, third wave feminism, anarcha-feminism, social feminism, liberal feminism, libertarian feminism, post-colonial feminism, postmodern feminism, separation feminism, third-world feminism… I mean, I could go on.

“Feminism” isn’t a monolith. Feminist thinkers of different bents have very different ideas about feminism. Some are in direct opposition to one another.

I’ve also never studied a feminist movement that gave two figs about what language the Catholic liturgy uses. So with all due respect to the good Father, perhaps he shouldnt paint a complex subject with such a broad brush. And I put it to you that if we want to know what feminists think, we should listen to what feminist thinkers actually say and read what they actually write. They’re quite capable of articulating their thoughts themselves.

 

[DarkLight]

Women’s experiences even within the same country vary too. I have lived some places in the U.S. - I didn’t have a car - and being hooted and hollered at, or having men get very aggressive trying to get me to agree to something, was pretty common. And I know unfortunately that many of those men seemed to take merely being single and refusing to “give them a chance” as a sign of misandry.

I know other women with different lives don’t necessarily have that same experience.

 

[ontheway1]

Thank you, DarkLight. You make an excellent point. You are an individual and not a group. The man accosting you in that specific situation was an individual man. He probably would acted aggressively toward someone else; woman or man. An exception would be if he was a member of a self-identified group of misogynists, for example.

Feminists view you and me not as individual persons but as representatives of groups at war. From their point of view, you are a victim because you are a woman; and I am the aggressor. Done.

 

[DarkLight]

Thank you, DarkLight. You make an excellent point. You are an individual and not a group. The man accosting you in that specific situation was an individual man. He probably would acted aggressively toward someone else; woman or man. An exception would be if he was a member of a self-identified group of misogynists, for example.

Feminists view you and me not as individual persons but as representatives of groups at war. From their point of view, you are a victim because you are a woman; and I am the aggressor. Done.

That’s not the viewpoint of any feminist I know - and I know of a lot. It’s a straw man that people who don’t like feminism comes up with, that being a feminist means you must think every man ever is bad.

What they do think is that there are trends in society that produce or excuse certain behaviors. So for example, there are certain ways of depicting women and male-female relationships that encourage men to treat women as objects to be won by being persistent enough, or that encourage an attitude of entitlement to access to women. And you don’t have to identify yourself as a misogynist, for example, to be a misogynist. The guy who thinks women are all female dogs if they don’t want to talk to him in public, or that women who are nice to him but don’t agree to sleep with him are being manipulative, is still displaying misogynistic attitudes.

You’ll also note that men who walk in these same areas don’t get the same level of aggression, and in fact it almost entirely disappears for a woman who’s accompanied by a man. It’s definitely fairly specific, that a certain type sees women as denying them something and will go after women. From comparing with male friends who took the same paths I did, these were definitely actions that were explicitly targeted at women, almost certainly from men who would say they weren’t sexist at all.

Part of what feminism is saying as well, in many cases, is that it doesn’t have to be that blatant. A common example that comes up in the workplace, for example, is people just assuming female employees are going to make coffee and take notes at meetings, and being put off when she doesn’t want to (because it’s more work for her). Or more generally, that men advocating for themselves is seen as expected behavior from men, but a woman advocating for herself is seen as pushy or demanding. It also says you have to consider other people’s experiences. I had that come up in a financial discussion not too long ago - as a woman, ditching a car almost certainly opens me up to a level of harassment and targeting that a man in my situation wouldn’t even consider.

 

[Athanasiy]

Expensive furs, shoes, parfumes, depict the interests and lifestyles of the elite as natural. The beautiful models glamorize the commodity beyond reach of the average individual.
Its all goes in unison.
Beauty,wealth, luxury.

 

[Rhubarb]

I only had time to give it a brief read right now, but from what I can see, that article encompasses more of feminism -actually is- than the OP.

I especially like the words of John Paul II " “Here I cannot fail to express my admiration for those women of good will who have devoted their lives to defending the dignity of womanhood by fighting for their basic social, economic and political rights, demonstrating courageous initiative at a time when this was considered extremely inappropriate, the sign of a lack of femininity, a manifestation of exhibitionism, and even a sin!”

I think Fr.John Hardon S.J. could take a lesson from he good Saint Pope. Who acknowledges that feminism is both necessary, and vilified for the good it does.

 

[PJH_74]

Feminism seems to put women on any and all pedestals there are. Women are told that they can have it all, as if they were super-natural. They are told that they deserve everything because they are women.
It seems that “female” has become a fetish by definition. The only question is whether it is women themselves who have created this fetish, or is there some other “force” behind it.

Maybe there is an idea the women can be anything they want, the problem is many men and society doesn’t want to liberate women from their traditional roles. This is not a fetish all. You well know that the topic at hand was not women fetishising themselves, it was being made into objects by men. If a woman wants to dress in a more revealing way, it is her choice. More importantly if she wants to be “sexy” it should be her right to limit who she intends to direct it at. This is not a fetish, it is self expression. Please do not use some twisting of language to just if your opinions.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I was at University long before the mass use of social media and this Marxist form of feminism was already alive and flourishing especially in academia.

Now I was in the STEM field so my exposure was limited but my friends in the social sciences were especially affected.

Maybe it’s faded as of late or my university just didn’t have a problem, but even the people I knew in the social sciences, including women and gender studies, never got that bad. Even the couple people who sort of went off the deep end never were the “vitriolic Marxist” type or taught anything resembling of what OP seems to think feminism is. I even have one friend whose very openly Marxist and feminist, and she’s hardly vitriolic. She’s very assertive, and some may see that as being vitriolic, but she’s not mean.

This is one thing I have not been able to entirely resolve, the bible does divide certain gender roles and the papal encyclicals have done the same (I can’t get over what JPII said about it).

It is possible to recognize that gender plays a role in helping us determine what God wants for us without extending that to irrelevant areas. For instance, we can recognize that one’s gender will play a role in their vocational options and place in their vocation, but that does not mean the gender disparity in STEM is somehow Biblical.

An exception would be if he was a member of a self-identified group of misogynists, for example.

Sort of like nice guys and incels to name just the most famous groups. There is, in fact, an issue where communities have birthed from men who have an incredibly low view of women, often out of frustration that women won’t have sex that they feel entitled to. A lot of times, this doesn’t leave the Internet, but there have been very tragic real-life consequences, not counting the treatment women face from men in these groups.

Feminists view you and me not as individual persons

Feminism is, by its nature, very societally-focused. That doesn’t mean feminists don’t care about the individuals, whether male or female, but when you’re fighting for societal betterment, a lot of your work will naturally focus on collectives. Criticizing feminism for being collectively-focused would be like criticizing the Catholic Church for constantly talking about “the poor” rather than an individual poor person.

 

[edwest]

Radical feminists are bad. They promote wrong views about women and men.

Betty Friedan compared the family to “a comfortable concentration camp.”
Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Obviously, there is not even a species relationship.

Radical feminists are pro-abortion, pro-contraception… and just stop by the web site for the National Organization for Women to learn the rest.