Feminism, can any good come from it?

[lak611]

And this is why the term “Women’s Movement” is an oxymoron. The feminists are not interested in representing the rights of ALL women: only women who agree with their radical agendas. Try debating a feminist on the issue of stay-at-home mom’s, or, God forbid, abortion. Suddenly they are not all that concerned with your right to discern what is best for you. Feminists believe that any woman who deviates from the radical script is a traitor. You can read this in Linda Hirschman’s most recent screed Get To Work:
amazon.com/Get-Work-Manifesto-Women-World/dp/0670038121/sr=1-1/qid=1170736379/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5522025-3055128?ie=UTF8&s=books

Do you consider abortion on demand being the law of the land a “grievance”? The unthinkable damage done to society (and our Church) by the militant feminist movement is irreversible. And if so much harm can occur in just a scant 30 years, it speaks even more profoundly to how powerful and imbedded this message is in our national psyche.

Sanger, while a big proponent of eugenics, NEVER supported abortion. Even she called it “barbaric.” Abortion has no roots in the historical suffrage or early feminist movement. It is a completely modern development.

See post #12. There is an organization called Feminists for Life.

 

[blessedtoo]

I agree that businesses should try to make motherhood and work possible for women today–but I don’t agree that the work must necessarily be from inside the home. Mothers should be able to raise their children at home if they so desire, but if they also want to do fulfilling work (I’m not talking about basketweaving or its modern counterpart here), the work world should accomodate that. The expectation that women, in seeking equality with men, will sacrifice everything which makes them uniquely feminine–including their vocation to motherhood–is a severely flawed one.

This is a perfect example of the “entitlement” mentality. Women who choose to work outside the home when they have young children have made a CHOICE (I am not speaking of women without children or single mothers, so let’s not get into that debate). Why then should businesses be expected to accomodate their lifestyle choice? Women take more time off from their jobs then men and run a greater risk of leaving the workforce earlier than men for family reasons.
humanresources.about.com/od/worklifebalance/a/business_women.htm
From a purely business standpoint, why should any smart businessman accomodate this?

 

[blessedtoo]

See post #12. There is an organization called Feminists for Life.

I’ve visited their website many times. While they are pro-life, I still find some of their positions in other areas tainted.

 

[Rach620]

I wasn’t saying they would, but frankly, since when should women condescend to be equal to men? Our society doesn’t know what equality means, or it would know all humans have always had and can’t lose the only equality that matters. What is necessary is, as in all things, recognition of truth–including the truth of equality. But equal does not mean same.

I completely agree–therein lies the flaw of modern feminism, claiming that we’re not equal until we’re identical.

Oh, of course, because basketweaving’s not fulfilling. Tell that to the Apaches, lady.

I’m sure it’s fulfilling for the Apaches. I’m not saying that Apache women are wrong for finding it fulfilling. My point is that I wouldn’t find it fulfilling, and I’d want any modern attempt at accomodating working motherhood to be something more substantial than moving some manufacturing back into the home.

I have an unholy suspicion you still can’t clear your mind of the idea that tending a home is not “fulfilling” work–like any other work in the universe matters a damn in comparison.

You couldn’t be more wrong here. Any career on earth does not compare to bringing new life into the world. My concern is that my family will more than likely need more than one income, especially in the early years. I want nothing more than to be able to raise my children as a SAHM–and I should be able to do that, to at least a relatively large extent, without being marginalized by the work world.

The fact of the matter is that our modern society–ironically thanks to radical feminists–does not accomodate true working mothers whatsoever. Just because I will choose to welcome whatever children God blesses my family with does not mean the value of my college degree and/or my intellectual interests should have to fly out the window, leaving me with no option but basketweaving (to use your example).

 

[Rach620]

This is a perfect example of the “entitlement” mentality. Women who choose to work outside the home when they have young children have made a CHOICE (I am not speaking of women without children or single mothers, so let’s not get into that debate). Why then should businesses be expected to accomodate their lifestyle choice? Women take more time off from their jobs then men and run a greater risk of leaving the workforce earlier than men for family reasons.
humanresources.about.com/od/worklifebalance/a/business_women.htm
From a purely business standpoint, why should any smart businessman accomodate this?

I don’t think it’s a CHOICE in many circumstances. A two-income household is really the standard in today’s society; many working mothers would rather not be working.

I wasn’t talking about a pure business standpoint. If we operated from that mentality, ‘smart businessmen’ wouldn’t be accomodating many things–maternity leave at all, health benefits, vacation time, etc. My opinion is that business has no right to destroy the lives/souls of its employees. So they should offer these things because they care about their employees–more than cold, hard cash. I would hope that Christian employers would carry their Christian values into their business practices.

Call me naive, but I’m thinking here about what should be the norm for our society. Shouldn’t our society in general be more welcoming of young motherhood–and supportive of it in the ways which matter?

 

[blessedtoo]

I don’t think it’s a CHOICE in many circumstances. A two-income household is really the standard in today’s society; many working mothers would rather not be working.

It is always a choice, regardless of what the standard of society might be. I tremble at the mere idea of trying to keep up with the standards that society has presented. This issue has been hotly debated many times before on these forums so I really don’t want to get into a discussion about adjusting lifestyles to fit the family income, rather than the other way around. But I will say that younger women in today’s world still believe it is possible to have it all: big house, new car (or 2), vacations, full time jobs and motherhood without anyone suffering. I think it’s a big fat lie and we see the results of this everywhere we look.

I wasn’t talking about a pure business standpoint. If we operated from that mentality, ‘smart businessmen’ wouldn’t be accomodating many things–maternity leave at all, health benefits, vacation time, etc.

Business exists for specific reasons: to provide a service for a profit. When “benefits” begin to cut into their ability to achieve their goals, then everyone loses. Business that are forced to provide extra’s to employees run the risk of not being able to continue operating. When they close their doors, you and all your co-workers lose their jobs. How does that help anyone? If a business wants to and is able to provide health insurance and vacation pay for their employees, that’s fabulous. But a business should not be forced to or expected to offer this. The fact that women now expect the basic benefits, AND maternity leave, family leave, extended leave for sick family members is, I think, an entitlement mentality.

My opinion is that business has no right to destroy the lives/souls of its employees.

Businesses/employers have no power to “destroy” lives. You don’t have to work for them.

So they should offer these things because they care about their employees–more than cold, hard cash.

Employers show how much they “care” for their employees by signing their paychecks every week. They show their “caring” by keeping their businesses operational and profitable so that they may continue to employ and pay you. Beyond that, they don’t have to care a whit (and usually don’t).

I would hope that Christian employers would carry their Christian values into their business practices.

This is why I work for Christian employers. But again, the bottom line is they must make a profit, or I am out of a job.

Shouldn’t our society in general be more welcoming of young motherhood–and supportive of it in the ways which matter?

Absolutely, but you are never going to find this in the business world. Our society used to be very supportive of motherhood: when I was growing up in the stone age, my mother knew all the other mothers in the neighborhood. They used to gather for coffee and cards, or to attend Mass during the week. My grandparents, aunts and uncles were always on hand to babysit when mom and dad wanted to go out dancing. I knew all the kids in the neighborhood and all their parents. The dads all hung out together on the weekends while working in their yards.
I don’t consider corporate daycare, family leave, unfamiliar babysitters, extended after school care, hot lunch and breakfasts at school and all the other “interventions” that were designed, in part, by the feminist agenda to be even a close approximation of “support”.

 

[Abira]

reallt this thread is about femenist freedom to choose. whether or not anyone agrees with each others respective positions doesn’t matter. The point is that we have the freedom to stay in the home or the freedom to choose not to.

Any society that denies freedom of choice is wrong. I think it’s wrong to force any position on someone. If it is right for them they should accept it out of free will.

 

[JamesG]

I think it’s very degrading for you to make the categorical statement that all American women are unsuitable for marriage. Have you personally met with every last one of us? Sure, the culture here is toxic–but that doesn’t mean there aren’t pockets in the Western world who recognize that.

I would say that that most americanized women are brainwashed. Just my experience anyway

Anyways, I wasn’t calling all women from other countries ‘mail-order brides’. The tone you were taking (and I understand that this is an internet forum)–seeking out the ‘uncorrupted,’ ‘traditional’ woman who will ‘show respect’ to you–seemed condescending to me, especially since you are saying that you can only find that ‘kind’ of woman in a non-Western country. Those are all characteristics of modern mail-order brides, if I’m correct.

You are incorrect. It isn’t fair to label women who have traditional values as mail-order brides.

Believe me, I am no radical feminist. I am a young, deeply orthodox Catholic, American woman who embraces the dignity of women, and I understand that dignity entails certain social and political rights which we have long been denied by various cultures and governments.

Yes. I am pro-life, study the theology of the body, understand the sacramentality of marriage, and fully believe in the unseparable procreative and unitive purposes of sex. Chastity is a virtue I seek to cultivate in my own life, and I hope to bring as many children as God desires into the world to raise them in the beauty of our Catholic faith.

If this is true and you respect all church teachings (even holy orders) then God bless you. It is very rare.

As far as Church teaching on the dignity of women, I suggest you read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem.

I would suggest you read it again and then when you do perhaps you will stop calling women with traditional values or those that want to be housewives mail order brides.

I still don’t get your point, then. Why can’t a woman also help to provide for her family?

I suspect you would also say, “why can’t a woman be a priest?”

If you do then you need to read the theology of the body over again.

 

[Rach620]

It is always a choice, regardless of what the standard of society might be. I tremble at the mere idea of trying to keep up with the standards that society has presented. … But I will say that younger women in today’s world still believe it is possible to have it all: big house, new car (or 2), vacations, full time jobs and motherhood without anyone suffering. I think it’s a big fat lie and we see the results of this everywhere we look.

I’m not talking about wanting ‘it all’ here. I’m trying to be realistic. Supporting a family–even without all the bells and whistles expected in American society today–isn’t cheap. The cost of living today and the pay structures aren’t made for single-income households any more, from what I can tell. It’s a tough situation, and my point is that many mothers must make the difficult decision to go to work, in the best interest of their families. For some women, yes, it is a matter of not prioritizing well and being too materialistic; but for many, it is not.

Business exists for specific reasons: to provide a service for a profit. When “benefits” begin to cut into their ability to achieve their goals, then everyone loses. Business that are forced to provide extra’s to employees run the risk of not being able to continue operating. When they close their doors, you and all your co-workers lose their jobs. How does that help anyone? If a business wants to and is able to provide health insurance and vacation pay for their employees, that’s fabulous. But a business should not be forced to or expected to offer this. The fact that women now expect the basic benefits, AND maternity leave, family leave, extended leave for sick family members is, I think, an entitlement mentality.

I’m not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I think it’s a sad reflection of our society that greater accomodations aren’t made, that’s all.

The problem at the heart of this all is that our culture doesn’t want to accept that there are fundamental differences between men and women which impact their entire lives. Men obviously do not need maternity leave, family leave, or extended leave for sick family members to the extent that women do, so it apparently it is extraordinary for a woman to ask for such a thing–it indicates that we have an ‘entitlement mentality’. It’s not ‘entitlement,’ it’s reality. If our culture is going to be genuinely fair to men and women, practices and expectations are going to have to change.

Businesses/employers have no power to “destroy” lives. You don’t have to work for them.

You don’t see a connection between the materialistic culture which causes people to want to ‘have it all’ and the cutthroat profit-above-all-else mentality of many modern corporations? True, I don’t have to work for them, but they’re the ones who really need to change in order to better our society.

Employers show how much they “care” for their employees by signing their paychecks every week. They show their “caring” by keeping their businesses operational and profitable so that they may continue to employ and pay you. Beyond that, they don’t have to care a whit (and usually don’t).

They don’t have to, correct. But my question is–should they?

Absolutely, but you are never going to find this in the business world. Our society used to be very supportive of motherhood: when I was growing up in the stone age, my mother knew all the other mothers in the neighborhood. They used to gather for coffee and cards, or to attend Mass during the week. My grandparents, aunts and uncles were always on hand to babysit when mom and dad wanted to go out dancing. I knew all the kids in the neighborhood and all their parents. The dads all hung out together on the weekends while working in their yards.

That sounds lovely, but that idyllic vision has sadly long-since passed away.

I don't consider corporate daycare, family leave, unfamiliar babysitters, extended after school care, hot lunch and breakfasts at school and all the other "interventions" that were designed, in part, by the feminist agenda to be even a close approximation of "support".

It’s better than nothing, but those things you’ve mentioned aren’t even what I’m talking about, exactly. Why can’t there be more options where a mother could perhaps work a couple days a week in the office, and the rest at home (and still be taken seriously)? Why can’t it be easier for her to keep her job when she takes time off to have a baby? I’m not asking for substitute mommies. I’m asking for employers to actually care for their employees more than just cogs in the wheel. I don’t see how anyone could oppose that.

 

[Rach620]

You are incorrect. It isn’t fair to label women who have traditional values as mail-order brides.
…

I would suggest you read it again and then when you do perhaps you will stop calling women with traditional values or those that want to be housewives mail order brides.

I wasn’t labeling women with traditional values. I was more making a comment on YOUR attitude towards dating these ‘attractive’ foreign women with ‘traditional values’ who ‘show you respect’. It didn’t sound like you were looking for a partner to share your life with, but a compliant and pretty wife.

I’m an orthodox Catholic who would consider myself to have relatively traditional values (though I do not believe that ‘traditional values’ necessarily mean that a woman’s place is necessarily in the home; to me, that’s a flawed understanding).

If this is true and you respect all church teachings (even holy orders) then God bless you. It is very rare.

I suspect you would also say, “why can’t a woman be a priest?”

If you do then you need to read the theology of the body over again.

I do not believe that women should be priests because I understand that there are inherent differences between men and women. That’s what “New Feminism” is–understanding and embracing those differences as good and holy, and with great meaning and relevance in all aspects of our lives, rather than expecting to ignore them in certain areas (for example, career choice).

 

[JimG]

The cost of living today and the pay structures aren’t made for single-income households any more, from what I can tell. .

That’s quite true.

Back when the encyclical “Rerum Novarum” was written, most women were not in the work force. The Pope urged businesses to pay a “living wage” to the chief earner of the family, generally a man at that point. This meant that the employer should pay a wage to a head of household sufficient to support the family.

Some employers took this at least partially to heart. As late as the 1970’s, some companies paid married men more for the same job than single men, because single men didn’t have a family to support.

That was in line with the encyclical. But it would certainly violate EEOC laws today.

When more, or most, women began to enter the workforce, the idea of a living wage sort of died out, because most families were supported by two incomes rather than one.

But there was an undesirable side effect.

As two income families, and thus family incomes, increased, prices rose to meet the rising family incomes. So working moms by the very fact of adding to family income, tended to undermine stay at home mom’s, who got the higher prices but not the higher family incomes.

 

[john_ennis]

Feminism, if it means the sensible understanding that women and men are of equal worth and intelligence, and ought to be able to choose any career they’re capable of, has, I think, been a good thing.

Feminism, the political philosophy that has now become an incredibly selfish, power-worshipping, and cynical movement…well, it fights most bitterly against the things which are most virtuous–protection of unborn babies being the most stark illustration.

Peace.
John

 

[JamesG]

Feminism, if it means the sensible understanding that women and men are of equal worth and intelligence, and ought to be able to choose any career they’re capable of, has, I think, been a good thing.

Feminism, the political philosophy that has now become an incredibly selfish, power-worshipping, and cynical movement…well, it fights most bitterly against the things which are most virtuous–protection of unborn babies being the most stark illustration.

Peace.
John

What is worse is that it is like paganism. You can’t define it exactly. There are many different flavours.

I think catholics should just say that they call themselves catholics and not feminists.

Show me one good thing that feminism invented that wasn’t already given to us by the church.

 

[JamesG]

I do not believe that women should be priests because I understand that there are inherent differences between men and women. That’s what “New Feminism” is–understanding and embracing those differences as good and holy, and with great meaning and relevance in all aspects of our lives, rather than expecting to ignore them in certain areas (for example, career choice).

As per my previous post, why don’t you just embrace the catholic church? Why do you have to promote its values under another banner? Pick up the banner of Christ not some other secular flavour of the month.

This is exactly why there so many women who don’t feel welcome in the church.

 

[john_ennis]

What is worse is that it is like paganism. You can’t define it exactly. There are many different flavours.

I think catholics should just say that they call themselves catholics and not feminists.

.

The generic meaning of “feminism” ought to be understood as simply being supportive of the female sex. But if you said you were a feminist everybody would assume you were a Feminist.

So we can be feminists, but be against Feminism.
Be for democracy, and not be a Democrat.
Be for freedom, but not be “Pro-choice.”

Semantics.

Peace.
John

 

[Rach620]

I think catholics should just say that they call themselves catholics and not feminists.

You can be Catholic and a feminist (not a radically pro-choice, man-hating feminist, of course, but a woman who understands and appreciates the value and dignity of her femininity).

From Pope John Paul II’s Enclyclical *Evangelium Vitae: *

In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to promote a “new feminism” which rejects the temptation of imitating models of “male domination”, in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.

A good, short explanatory article on the Pope’s ‘new feminism’.

Show me one good thing that feminism invented that wasn’t already given to us by the church.

Feminism, in any of its incarnations, didn’t ‘invent’ anything. Historically, it asserted the equal rights of women (to an education, to vote, to employment). All of those are good things in and of themselves, though the ways in which our society has realized those rights has not always been the best.

 

[Rach620]

The generic meaning of “feminism” ought to be understood as simply being supportive of the female sex. But if you said you were a feminist everybody would assume you were a Feminist.

Which is why I will continue to call myself a Catholic feminist, providing the opportunity to explain to people what that exactly means.

 

[lak611]

Show me one good thing that feminism invented that wasn’t already given to us by the church.

Voting, whether by males or females, was not given to us by the Church. Voting is a government given right.

 

[JamesG]

The generic meaning of “feminism” ought to be understood as simply being supportive of the female sex. But if you said you were a feminist everybody would assume you were a Feminist.

So we can be feminists, but be against Feminism.
Be for democracy, and not be a Democrat.
Be for freedom, but not be “Pro-choice.”

Semantics.

Peace.
John

I can be a catholic and be for women, democracy, and freedom. there is no need to use another term and create confusion.

Would you take the Eucharist and place it beside burnt offerings to idols? Others would say, “look we can get that from the idol and not christ”

 

[Rach620]

As per my previous post, why don’t you just embrace the catholic church? Why do you have to promote its values under another banner? Pick up the banner of Christ not some other secular flavour of the month.

This is exactly why there so many women who don’t feel welcome in the church.

What are you talking about? I’m Catholic. I embrace the Catholic Church. And because of my CATHOLIC beliefs, I am also a feminist. It’s not a ‘secular flavor of the month’ at all…my feminism is deeply rooted in my faith. I’m not switching ‘banners’…I doubt there are many ‘feminist’ organizations out there who would be very welcoming of my position!

I know many women who, upon discovering the ‘new feminism’ feel even more welcome in the Church. The feminism I espouse is rooted in an understanding of the human person, in the very faith of our Church. The countercultural message of ‘new feminism’ is precisely what our culture needs today to combat the evils of divorce, abortion, and contraception, and to reawaken women’s knowledge of their inherent value and dignity.