Feminism, can any good come from it?

[JamesG]

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

If catholic women fought for that right under the banner of christ then perhaps it would of made women feel more welcome in the church.

anyway… you now have the right to vote. so please explain why you need feminism. what else does it promote that the church does not?

 

[Hastrman]

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.

I think you mean it asserted women’s equal right to be indoctrinated, to prop up the social club known as Parliament/Congress, and to slave for the capitalists.

Or in other words, they got the right to be just as oppressed as men by the abysmal system of 19th Century England and America, and then by its devolution in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Wowee. We owe them so much, don’t we? sniff

 

[Rach620]

If catholic women fought for that right under the banner of christ then perhaps it would of made women feel more welcome in the church.

That makes no sense.

1. I’m not sure how you fight for voting rights under the banner of Christ. I mean, yes, remember to act virtuously at all times, even in your political lobbying…But as Catholics, we believe that rational arguments can be used to approach the truths of our faith. You can use reason alone in your political arguments to argue for the political rights of women, even without bringing the ‘banner of Christ’ into it, and that is often what our secular society requires.
2. How would that have ‘made women feel more welcome in the Church,’ exactly?

anyway… you now have the right to vote. so please explain why you need feminism. what else does it promote that the church does not?

‘Feminism’ isn’t some sort of institution that fights for things and gets things done. It’s a description of a particular kind of philosophy, that’s all. ‘New feminism’ is about much more than only the right to vote–as anyone can see, there are many areas of life in which the equality in dignity of men and women is not appreciated–so these issues are still obviously worth talking about. And–shockingly enough–we can talk about them WITHIN the Church.

Case in point: The [Edith Stein Project](http://www.edithste(name removed by moderator)roject.org/workfiles/html/history/who%20we%20are/Index.html) at my university. Check it out.

 

[Rach620]

I think you mean it asserted women’s equal right to be indoctrinated, to prop up the social club known as Parliament/Congress, and to slave for the capitalists.

Or in other words, they got the right to be just as oppressed as men by the abysmal system of 19th Century England and America, and then by its devolution in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Wowee. We owe them so much, don’t we? sniff

sigh

Whatever your grudges against the capitalist system, as a woman, I’m glad that I have the opportunity to get a great education, to have my voice heard in politics if I so choose, and to have virtually limitless career choices. At least I now feel valued to some minimal degree as a member of society who can be trusted to discern her vocation for herself, rather than being forced into a situation in which her potential has been wasted.

 

[Hastrman]

sigh

Whatever your grudges against the capitalist system, as a woman, I’m glad that I have the opportunity to get a great education, to have my voice heard in politics if I so choose, and to have virtually limitless career choices. At least I now feel valued to some minimal degree as a member of society who can be trusted to discern her vocation for herself, rather than being forced into a situation in which her potential has been wasted.

What, you mean like you would have been in a medieval Guild, where you own your own tools, work for yourself, and can stop working whenever you want?

Yeah, that would have been terrible. It’s so much better to work entirely for the profit of others, at their whim, not being able to stop unless they let you, and being rendered destitute when they no longer wish to employ you.

Also, of course, women in cultures where they don’t “work” often have all kinds of intellectual pursuits men (other than monks) don’t have time for. Court women in Japan invented the novel; medieval noblewomen wrote theological treatises.
Peasant women the world over invented the fairy tales that contain a deeper, more philosophical understanding of life than most people can even conceive.

You seem to have a lot of modernist cultural baggage, and it colors your perceptions. Kill the illusion of progress. It hurts your ability to judge between systems.

 

[lak611]

I used to study British history and the number of laws relating to the conduct of women staggered me. I feel if we had the benefit of walking a mile in their shoes this thread would be a very different one.

We forget that women were often not allowed to go out unaccompanied for fear of being arrested (in the UK) or branded a streetwalker. I am proud that a Christian society has created a country heading towards equality (sometimes slowly!). There are many countries all over the word where women would love to have the freedoms and priviedges that we have now.

That sounds a lot like they way women are still being treated in the Middle East.

 

[lak611]

I think you mean it asserted women’s equal right to be indoctrinated, to prop up the social club known as Parliament/Congress, and to slave for the capitalists.

Or in other words, they got the right to be just as oppressed as men by the abysmal system of 19th Century England and America, and then by its devolution in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Wowee. We owe them so much, don’t we? sniff

Would you rather we all live in a totalitarian society since Parliament and Congress are so horrible to you that you don’t believe they are good for men or women?

 

[Hastrman]

Would you rather we all live in a totalitarian society since Parliament and Congress are so horrible to you that you don’t believe they are good for men or women?

Yeah, the only alternatives in the universe are parliamentarianism or totalitarianism. No other political systems have ever existed. None whatsoever.

How about you ditch the false dichotomies?

 

[JamesG]

That makes no sense.

1. I’m not sure how you fight for voting rights under the banner of Christ. I mean, yes, remember to act virtuously at all times, even in your political lobbying…But as Catholics, we believe that rational arguments can be used to approach the truths of our faith. You can use reason alone in your political arguments to argue for the political rights of women, even without bringing the ‘banner of Christ’ into it, and that is often what our secular society requires.
2. How would that have ‘made women feel more welcome in the Church,’ exactly?

‘Feminism’ isn’t some sort of institution that fights for things and gets things done. It’s a description of a particular kind of philosophy, that’s all. ‘New feminism’ is about much more than only the right to vote–as anyone can see, there are many areas of life in which the equality in dignity of men and women is not appreciated–so these issues are still obviously worth talking about. And–shockingly enough–we can talk about them WITHIN the Church.

Case in point: The [Edith Stein Project](http://www.edithste(name removed by moderator)roject.org/workfiles/html/history/who%20we%20are/Index.html) at my university. Check it out.

You don’t create a secular banner and then attribute the words of christ to it. Thats like preaching the word of christ under the name of Jesica or something like that.

If you want to say something good and helpfull that you know christ supports then why are you so afraid to give him credit for it? (oh I forgot… christ is a man and the catholic church is run by men… thats why…they don’t understand. )

What I find interesting is that basic teachings of the catholic church need to be grouped and called “New Feminism”. That is not the popes message.

The JP2 had to create a special net to retrive all the women who are stuck within the weeds of feminism. He is not for one second creating a new school of throught for you to group yourself under. . He is trying to help women realize that the church supports women on its own. JP2 was a fisherman after all, and sometimes fish are hard to catch.

Why basic teachings of the church are shocking to you I just don’t understand. I mean why do you need another label inorder to respect the teachings of the church? These teachings have never changed. Why is it that with a new name you can accept the message of christ.

But again, what does feminism promote that the catholic church does not? You didn’t answer that question.

 

[lak611]

Yeah, the only alternatives in the universe are parliamentarianism or totalitarianism. No other political systems have ever existed. None whatsoever.

How about you ditch the false dichotomies?

I happen to like living in a republic with a market driven economy.

 

[Hastrman]

I happen to like living in a republic with a market driven economy.

Bully for you. I don’t–and what either of us likes is irrelevant.

You implied that parliamentary oligarchy…oops, I mean a republic…is the only alternative to totalitarianism. That idea is patently false.

 

[lak611]

Bully for you. I don’t–and what either of us likes is irrelevant.

You implied that parliamentary oligarchy…oops, I mean a republic…is the only alternative to totalitarianism. That idea is patently false.

It is not the only alternative, just the one I prefer.

 

[MariaG]

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

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

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

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 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.

Since apparently there you live in Canada, but according to your experience, there are no women who have traditional values, you would have to get a wife through what has been historically known as “mail order” brides.

Most here, men or women do not believe that it is an open issue for women to be priests.

Maybe the reason you can’t find anyone who reflects traditional values because those of us, like me, who do have traditional values, (stay at home mom for 18 years, oldest is 17), find your sweeping generalities offensive and prejudiced. I suspect there are more around than you can imagine but until you choose to stop painting all western women with your prejudices and making assumptions like we must support women ordination just because a woman disagrees with you, you are likely not going to find them.

Traditional values does not mean one does not have an opinion or should not be allowed to voice that opinion.

 

[MariaG]

What, you mean like you would have been in a medieval Guild, where you own your own tools, work for yourself, and can stop working whenever you want?

Yeah, that would have been terrible. It’s so much better to work entirely for the profit of others, at their whim, not being able to stop unless they let you, and being rendered destitute when they no longer wish to employ you.

Also, of course, women in cultures where they don’t “work” often have all kinds of intellectual pursuits men (other than monks) don’t have time for. Court women in Japan invented the novel; medieval noblewomen wrote theological treatises.
Peasant women the world over invented the fairy tales that contain a deeper, more philosophical understanding of life than most people can even conceive.

You seem to have a lot of modernist cultural baggage, and it colors your perceptions. Kill the illusion of progress. It hurts your ability to judge between systems.

Yeah, sniff* I surely miss the days when women were treated as property and their husbands could beat them to death. Sniff* Times were so much better for women then.

You seem to suffer from romanticism and do not have a realistic view of times past instead of realistically seeing that women had few choices and some of those choices became between eating and choosing a life of prostitution.

Historical feminism of 1920’s, 30’s, and before is not the same as the “feminism” the 1960’s and later.

 

[Rach620]

What, you mean like you would have been in a medieval Guild, where you own your own tools, work for yourself, and can stop working whenever you want?

Yeah, that would have been terrible. It’s so much better to work entirely for the profit of others, at their whim, not being able to stop unless they let you, and being rendered destitute when they no longer wish to employ you.

Also, of course, women in cultures where they don’t “work” often have all kinds of intellectual pursuits men (other than monks) don’t have time for. Court women in Japan invented the novel; medieval noblewomen wrote theological treatises.
Peasant women the world over invented the fairy tales that contain a deeper, more philosophical understanding of life than most people can even conceive.

You seem to have a lot of modernist cultural baggage, and it colors your perceptions. Kill the illusion of progress. It hurts your ability to judge between systems.

For one who warns others against false dichotomies, you sure dished one out yourself. So the options are working in a medieval craft guild OR in a post-industrial assembly line at the whim of a heartless employer? Right.

Look, I’m not a modernist, radical feminist who worships Progress and loathes the idea of anything of value coming from before the ‘Enlightenment’. Far from it. Then again, nor do I believe that the Middle Ages constituted the epitome of civilization and provided a fantastic situation for all women.

While women more than likely didn’t have it as bad during that time period as modern historians would like to think, I don’t think it’s really that helpful, in a 21st-century context, to point to their cultural norms and wonder why we can’t apply them to our current state. A lot has happened in the last 800 years; while we can learn from their norms, it’s impossible to resurrect them to any large extent.

Perhaps I would have been happy working in a medieval guild and composing fairy tales in my spare time if I had lived centuries ago. But we’ll never know, and there’s really no point in speculating. The point is to figure out how we can translate Catholic belief about the nature of the human person–specifically about women–into the modern context in which we all live.

 

[Sixtus]

I am all in favour of Equality and indeed have worked very hard to make it happen in the areas in which I have worked.

But I DO find it scary how many women seem to marry a guy, stay with him long enough to say give her two children then divorce him and become a ‘single’ mum.

I know some may be due to genuined irretrievable breakdown but cannot believe that is true in every case. I am amazed at how many are professional women.

 

[Rach620]

You don’t create a secular banner and then attribute the words of christ to it. Thats like preaching the word of christ under the name of Jesica or something like that.

I don’t know what secular banner you’re talking about. JPII is the one who coined the term ‘new feminism’ in response to the radicalized feminism of the 60s and 70s. If the problem is the word ‘feminism’ itself, get over it. NOW and NARAL don’t have a monopoly on the term or its meaning.

Besides, who ever said you couldn’t preach the Word of Christ under another name? I know of a few people who have done it… Aristotle, Socrates, to name a few. It’s possible to reason to truth, even outside of the faith. (I’m not saying Margaret Sanger is one of those people… but perhaps a few of the things Susan B Anthony was getting at were on the mark. )

If you want to say something good and helpfull that you know christ supports then why are you so afraid to give him credit for it? (oh I forgot… christ is a man and the catholic church is run by men… thats why…they don’t understand. )

Afraid to give Him credit for it? What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I see two options before me (Feminism or the Church of Christ) and choose feminism! I am a Catholic who fully believes what the Church teaches about the nature of the human person. This means that I am also a feminist, in that I uphold the dignity of women. The two options are not mutually exclusive at all…

What I find interesting is that basic teachings of the catholic church need to be grouped and called “New Feminism”. That is not the popes message.

He’s the one who coined the term.

The JP2 had to create a special net to retrive all the women who are stuck within the weeds of feminism. He is not for one second creating a new school of throught for you to group yourself under. . He is trying to help women realize that the church supports women on its own. JP2 was a fisherman after all, and sometimes fish are hard to catch.

But it is a new school of thought, albeit one based firmly in the tradition of the Church. There’s really no problem with having new areas of theological exploration, if they grow out of the tradition of our faith. Why would he have said that it is up to women in the Church to promote a ‘new feminism’ if he didn’t mean it?

Why basic teachings of the church are shocking to you I just don’t understand. I mean why do you need another label inorder to respect the teachings of the church? These teachings have never changed. Why is it that with a new name you can accept the message of christ.

What ‘basic teachings’ are shocking to me? I really can’t think of any. My feminist beliefs COME FROM my faith; I would not consider myself a feminist were it not for my faith.

But again, what does feminism promote that the catholic church does not?  You didn't answer that question.

True feminism grows out of Catholic belief; therefore, nothing is found in feminist beliefs which is not compatible with the Catholic faith.

 

[Hastrman]

For one who warns others against false dichotomies, you sure dished one out yourself. So the options are working in a medieval craft guild OR in a post-industrial assembly line at the whim of a heartless employer? Right.

I was not creating a false dichotomy, because you were saying you liked the modern economic system–and I was describing that economic system in its realities. And I didn’t say “working at an assembly line;” that may be the image conjured in your mind, but I meant no such vague, pisturesque ideas. I meant capitalism, period.

All capitalism is, in actual fact, as I described it. If you don’t think so, it’s only because you’re not acquainted with the science of economics, or you’ve been deluded by externals like white shirts and neckties.

Capitalism is that system in which the means of production are in the hands of a few (the capitalists) and those who do not own those means of production (the proletarians) must of necessity labor for the capitalists, and for the capitalists’ profit, while political liberty is in theory retained by all.

Working white-collar is exactly as bad as working an assembly line, except not as dignified; you are still a proletarian and nothing will change that.

Except owning a meaningful portion of the means of production.

I don’t think it’s really that helpful, in a 21st-century context, to point to their cultural norms and wonder why we can’t apply them to our current state. A lot has happened in the last 800 years; while we can learn from their norms, it’s impossible to resurrect them to any large extent.

Actually, of course we can. It’s poppycock to say we can’t turn back the clock: the clock, as Chesterton said, is a piece of human invention and so is society.

No, we can’t duplicate the entire medieval economic system–you’ve been slaves too long to know how to be free. But we can gradually bring it back, break down capitalism, and erect a just economy founded, not on competition, but on qualification. Medicine and law, as fields, are both still based on that, and they seem to be doing all right. Neurosurgery’s not exactly medieval, now is it? But it’s a guild all the same.

What if an industry–the means of production–was owned and controlled, not by investors, but by the people who actually worked in it? What if the ownership of some form of productive property (the means of production), including stock in a jointly held industry, became the norm of society? Why, then, eureka! We’ve brought back the guilds, and most of the rest of the medieval economic system!

Revolutions are not made by actions until very late in the game. Those actions must be the fruit of years and years of ideas: in this case, economic ideas. If you want to bring about an economic system founded on justice, you’d better learn economics.

No form of capitalism, properly so-called, is compatible with Christianity; only the ignorant can maintain otherwise.

 

[JamesG]

I don’t know what secular banner you’re talking about. JPII is the one who coined the term ‘new feminism’ in response to the radicalized feminism of the 60s and 70s. If the problem is the word ‘feminism’ itself, get over it. NOW and NARAL don’t have a monopoly on the term or its meaning.

I told you why he coined the term. It is a net to capture all the depressed women who have a hard time loving the church because the church is run by men. The church as been totally disrespect by feminists and that is why there is a need to make people realize that the always has supported those values. You don’t actually think that the church just changed its mind do you?

**
Besides, who ever said you couldn’t preach the Word of Christ under another name? I know of a few people who have done it… Aristotle, Socrates, to name a few. It’s possible to reason to truth, even outside of the faith.
**

You must be joking? Did I just read that. ** Please everyone tell me I’m seeing things! **

You might want to go to your local priest and ask him if it is ok to plagerize the teaching of christ under another name.

Jesus Himself said He was the only way to God. It is Jesus’ claim, not our invention. Consider these verses where Christ eliminates alternative ways to God: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me” (John 14:6). “For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

It took His death to pay the penalty for our sin. If there had been any other way, Jesus would not have died (Gal 2:21).

Our religion is an example of God reaching out to us not Man reaching out to God through reason that is outside of faith.

(I’m not saying Margaret Sanger is one of those people… but perhaps a few of the things Susan B Anthony was getting at were on the mark. )

You should make her your Messiah .

What exactly did susan B anthony add that the church already didn’t? Explain. You still haven’t provided one example.

Afraid to give Him credit for it? What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I see two options before me (Feminism or the Church of Christ) and choose feminism!

No, you are puting the feminist banner infront of Christ and making it sound like you do not entirely agree with the church on its own merit. You make it sound like you are some kind of splinter group. “Cathoic feminist” - it makes people think that the church isn’t good enough on its own for women.

I think it is pathetic that you need to add that term to the name of your faith. Again there is nothing that feminism adds to the catholic church.

I am a Catholic who fully believes what the Church teaches about the nature of the human person. This means that I am also a feminist, in that I uphold the dignity of women. The two options are not mutually exclusive at all…

I uphold the dignity of women but I have no need to call my self a feminist. If someone asks me I say that I am a catholic and because of that I have respect for the dignity of men and women. I am not focused or fighitng for one dignity over the other and I therefore do not need to call myself that.

But it is a new school of thought, albeit one based firmly in the tradition of the Church. There’s really no problem with having new areas of theological exploration, if they grow out of the tradition of our faith. Why would he have said that it is up to women in the Church to promote a ‘new feminism’ if he didn’t mean it?

He ment it and I already explained the reason for it. The feminist have brainwashed everyone away from the church. And now the pope has to show people the truth by integrating that culture. It is the same thing that the church did to the pagans of europe. The church integrated their special days into the church calendar.

What ‘basic teachings’ are shocking to me? I

those were your words not mine.

True feminism grows out of Catholic belief; therefore, nothing is found in feminist beliefs which is not compatible with the Catholic faith.

In other words feminism provides you with nothing that the church already hasn’t for last 2000 years. It just took a smart pope to help you realize it.

 

[Zahmir]

As a man, writing to hopefully subdue the tension in this thread, I hope I can offer just my two cents worth.

There is a view, present in many societies, that women need to be protected, sheltered from the world, and kept in the house; that women are somehow “inferior” to men, or, at the very least, that the present, demonstrable differences between men and women prove that men should work and women should raise the babies and do housework; and that women have nothing to contribute to the work place where everything can be done sufficiently by men.

Indeed, it is a threat to many men to be ousted by a woman, to even have a woman in the work place to begin with, and to have a wife that makes more money than the husband. In many cases, it would just seem better if women remained at home and let men take care of things.

Can we all agree that what has just been mentioned is all wrong? Women CAN work, and in fact, have been proven to be smarter than men on average. Women DO think differently but these differences can only help contribute to a diverse workplace; a different mind can see a problem in a whole new way.

I think the root of all the problems that have been reached in this thread is the idea that “success” is measured by one’s proficiency in the work place. This is wrong! It doesn’t matter at all how much money one makes (if your wife is making more than you, who cares?!), or how high up the ladder one is. In a family, all that matters is the marriage, the family, and the education of children. In fact, salary only serves the purpose of making sure children are well-educated and for providing for the needs of the family. How one earns a salary is secondary to this ultimate end. However, it is possible to do good while achieving another end. For example, while being paid 200,000 a year to support a family of six, I can also, in my job, serve the poor of the nation by helping them get health insurance and adequate health care. The gifts God has given me can be beneficial to large groups of people as well as my family.

Catholic feminists are doing nothing more but fighting for the woman’s right to choose for herself how she might best use her gifts. Ideally, a woman who decides to raise children will spend many of her gifts educating and raising her children. But as children depend on mothers less and less as they grow older, the gifts God has given women should not go to waste. Women have so much to offer and men have unfortunately stifled the abilities of so many capable women.

Femi-nazi’s are those women who claim that women don’t have a right to choose, but in fact, SHOULD work. They say that women shouldn’t have to deal with those burdens that womanhood has placed on them. They should have the ability to choose when and where they have sex without the consequences or without forethought. This kind of feminism is ironic because it degrades women in the same way that society has degraded men (that is, into thinking success is measured by material things.)

But TRUE feminism, “new feminism,” does away with both this radical feminism which is indeed, contrary to its own mission, and the man-dominated society which has kept women from offering up their gifts for the good of many.

It is increasingly important to stress the significance of motherhood, however, and to encourage women to take upon themselves the heavy responsibility of being a stay-at-home-mom. Unfortunately, present society doesn’t seem to allow for SAHMs unless the husband gets paid very well. As it stands, husbands and wives find themselves both working to support even a small family. There is no way around this unless one intends for there to only be small families.

But again, women in the workplace should not be a threat to society. On the contrary, women offer so much.

That is why the Catholic Church supports this “new feminism” so much. Women are not inferior nor are all feminists working contrary to the church. In fact, many feminists are strong supporters of STRONG MEN who can support them in their faith and help them to raise good children.

Rach620, my fiancee, could be classified as a new feminist. In fact, I could be classified as a new-feminist as well. However, we are both very traditional, orthodox catholics who simply understand that God did not create man to be dominant over women but to offer himself for them. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.” And that wives must constantly practice humility, for men too have a valued place in the family.

Men and women form a valuable team, not a hierarchy. One’s disordered impulses might tell a man that he shouldn’t be the lesser bread-winner or lower in ranks than a woman. However, when the world is properly understood, such things as “money” and “rank” mean next to nothing. Everything should be ordered to the family, not one’s pride.