Feminism, can any good come from it?

[Rach620]

Hastrman,

Regarding your latest post, it’s completely off-topic. If you want to debate capitalism, I’d be happy to on another thread–start one and PM me the link. For now, though, I can’t see what you present as much more than purportedly Christian Marxism/socialism, which has failed in its various political incarnations.

And frankly, I refuse to accept your idyllic/romanticized vision of the medieval era. If I remember correctly, it wasn’t as if every medieval man and woman were a merry member of a craft guild and was able to support himself, freely practice his faith, and spend his free time in fulfilling intellectual pursuits. I don’t think you can say that that society/form of economy was perfectly founded on justice.

Yeah, in a lot of ways the Middle Ages weren’t as screwed up as today. There was still a stable moral language, we hadn’t yet gone through the disaster for faith known as the Reformation, and philosophers actually probed real questions about the nature of God and humanity. But to idealize that time period and hope to return to it–even only in the economic sense–is taking it all a bit too far.

Since this thread is about feminism, I remember the circumstances of women then, who yes, in many ways were cherished more than today (ie, chivalry), but in other ways were objectified, valued only for their virginity and potential motherhood, and often not taken seriously as rational creatures. As I’ve said before, I’d much rather the ability to be educated, the opportunity to be valued as a human person with her own inherent dignity, and the right to have my own voice and opinions be valued just as much as the next guy.

 

[lak611]

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.

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.

Communism is not the answer either.

 

[JamesG]

oh… my … what a legacy for suzan b anthony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony

… that is just sooo bad… I guess she really isn’t liked.

 

[Hastrman]

But feminism, new or old or National Socialist, is a false ideology that elevates one element of the group–its women–above the others. That’s as insane as “childism” or “auntism” or “leftyism”. It has nothing to give us that right thinking will not also give us, and much to take away.

John Paul II was very brilliant and very holy. But he was a poet, and with all my very great respect for that land, he was a Pole. He had never lived under capitalism, but only under communism. You have read, perhaps, “Centissimus Annum”…but have you read “Rerum Novarum,” of which that was an anniversary celebration?

Catholicism did not begin with John Paul II. There were Catholics writing treatises on economics (Hilaire Belloc and his Servile State, for instance) who also wrote ballades in honor of the creation of independent Poland. While of course the contributions of a genius like JPII are valuable even at the end of a discussion, the middle and the beginning are important too, if the whole of the issue is to be understood.

I say again, Catholicism did not begin with John Paul II.

 

[Zahmir]

But feminism, new or old or National Socialist, is a false ideology that elevates one element of the group–its women–above the others. That’s as insane as “childism” or “auntism” or “leftyism”. It has nothing to give us that right thinking will not also give us, and much to take away.

John Paul II was very brilliant and very holy. But he was a poet, and with all my very great respect for that land, he was a Pole. He had never lived under capitalism, but only under communism. You have read, perhaps, “Centissimus Annum”…but have you read “Rerum Novarum,” of which that was an anniversary celebration?

Catholicism did not begin with John Paul II. There were Catholics writing treatises on economics (Hilaire Belloc and his Servile State, for instance) who also wrote ballades in honor of the creation of independent Poland. While of course the contributions of a genius like JPII are valuable even at the end of a discussion, the middle and the beginning are important too, if the whole of the issue is to be understood.

I say again, Catholicism did not begin with John Paul II.

If the word “feminism” is threatening, it merely is a reaction against the present reality. Of course, if you want the truth of everything, one would be called “Catholic” but in fighting against a particular flaw in society, one can be properly understood as a feminist.

 

[Hastrman]

Communism is not the answer either.

Feh! Communism? What kind of dog am I that you should accuse me of advocating communism? Did you know there were other economic systems possible in this world? I am a guild-syndicalist/distributist, not a Communist. I spit on the Communists!

Communism is merely the fulfillment of Capitalism, the removal of its inherent instability by removing liberty. I would sooner cut my belly than dream of so dirty a solution! The only just way to remove its instability is to create an economy with an even distribution of wealth. Hilaire Belloc, whose economic writings are so neglected (because clear and lucid, therefore causing thought), thought that distribution could only come about by force. I am not so certain; I think certain developments in America in recent years might be promising. But capitalism still holds the field.

 

[lak611]

Feh! Communism? What kind of dog am I that you should accuse me of advocating communism? Did you know there were other economic systems possible in this world? I am a guild-syndicalist/distributist, not a Communist. I spit on the Communists!

Communism is merely the fulfillment of Capitalism, the removal of its inherent instability by removing liberty. I would sooner cut my belly than dream of so dirty a solution! The only just way to remove its instability is to create an economy with an even distribution of wealth. Hilaire Belloc, whose economic writings are so neglected (because clear and lucid, therefore causing thought), thought that distribution could only come about by force. I am not so certain; I think certain developments in America in recent years might be promising. But capitalism still holds the field.

Well all that ranting about overthrowing the proletariat sounds like something straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto**.

 

[Rach620]

JamesG;1888733:

You don’t actually think that the church just changed its mind do you?

No, I never said that I thought the Church changed her mind. I said that the idea of the dignity of women has just recently been fully articulated (at least to my knowledge…I don’t know of much akin to Mulieris Dignitatem pre-JPII).

** 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.

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

Let me clarify. Man cannot fully reach God by force of his reason (because ultimately, faith is a mystery), but faith and reason do go together, and what we cannot build up by force of our reason, God reveals to us. This is a key part of our Catholic Faith.

Justin Martyr, an early Church Father, even said that Socrates might be considered a “Christian before the fact,” because he was pursuing Wisdom, and who is Christ but Wisdom Incarnate? I don’t completely agree with Justin here, but a better explanation comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who extensively refers to the work of ‘the Philosopher,’ Aristotle, in his works. And St. Thomas is considered a doctor of the Church!

“Although the truth of the Christian faith which we have discussed surpasses the capacity of the reason, nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith,” - Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I Chapter 7

“Sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity.” - Summa Theologica I.1.8 ad 2

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

I’ve said that feminists DIDN’T add anything! They only brought to attention the issue!

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.

No, I am indeed not.

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.

If anything, I am part of a splinter group within FEMINISM, never within Catholicism. To label myself a Catholic feminist is to say precisely what KIND OF FEMINIST I am, not what kind of Catholic I am. The Church is one–I am simply Catholic.

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.

I’m not fighting for one dignity over another…that makes no sense. The fact is that historically the dignity of women has not been appreciated in real social and political terms–that’s why feminism did come about, after all!

                          What 'basic teachings' are shocking to me?

those were your words not mine.

Nope, your words, from an earlier post. I still don’t find any of the basic teachings of the Church to be ‘shocking’. I embrace the beauty and unity of the Faith.

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.
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.

sigh Sadly, the Church did not provide women with the political rights which historical feminism provided. That was the point of this thread. As far as the ideological background, however, you’re correct–nothing new in feminism there which the Church doesn’t teach.

 

[Rach620]

oh… my … what a legacy for suzan b anthony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony

… that is just sooo bad… I guess she really isn’t liked.

What are you referring to, exactly?

The legacy I’m referring to: “Anthony tirelessly campaigned for suffrage, poor and professional women’s employment rights, the liberation of prostitutes, children’s rights, abolition of slavery and the death penalty, and temperance…She illegally voted, took part in the Underground Railway, and sheltered a domestic-violence victim and her child.”

 

[Hastrman]

Well all that ranting about overthrowing the proletariat sounds like something straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto**.

That’s nice. But unfortunately, “proletarian” is a technical term of the science of economics. Whatever subconscious associations it has in your mind are irrelevant to my point.

A proletarian is simply a person in a Capitalist economy who has no control (or, usually, ownership) of the means of production, and therefore must work for those who do, generally to the profit of both (but always to greater profit for the capitalists). They are distinct from slaves only by possessing (in theory) political, if not economic, liberty.

A Capitalist is a person in a Capitalist economy who does have control (and usually ownership) of the means of production, and receives the labor of the proletariat for his own benefit and profit. They are distinct from slave-owners only in not being legally responsible for the well-being of their workers.

 

[Rach620]

Feh! Communism? What kind of dog am I that you should accuse me of advocating communism? Did you know there were other economic systems possible in this world? I am a guild-syndicalist/distributist, not a Communist. I spit on the Communists!

Oh, I see. You advocate an even more practical solution to the world’s economic inequalities than Communism.

Look, I’m obviously no economist, but capitalism seems to be here to stay, at least for the relatively near future. Why is it not possible to seek solutions *within *that economic structure, instead of referring to the greatness of medieval guilds?

 

[JamesG]

What are you referring to, exactly?

The legacy I’m referring to: “Anthony tirelessly campaigned for suffrage, poor and professional women’s employment rights, the liberation of prostitutes, children’s rights, abolition of slavery and the death penalty, and temperance…She illegally voted, took part in the Underground Railway, and sheltered a domestic-violence victim and her child.”

I guess you didn’t scroll down and read the legacy part. It was hacked.

I’ll post some of it so you can find it.

Susan B. Anthony was honored as the first real bitch-*** (non-allegorical) American woman on circulating around my rectum
…

 

[Rach620]

I guess you didn’t scroll down and read the legacy part. It was hacked.

I’ll post some of it so you can find it.

You cited WIKIPEDIA. The open-source encyclopedia. By the time I got to it, this is what I read:

Susan B. Anthony was honored as the first real (non-allegorical) American woman on circulating U.S. coinage with her appearance on the Susan B. Anthony dollar. The coin, approximately the size of a U.S. quarter, was minted for only four years, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1999. Anthony dollars were produced at the Philadelphia and Denver mints for all four of these years, and at the San Francisco mint for all production years except 1999.

I see you didn’t answer any of my other quite lengthy response to your previous post. I was especially interested to see your reaction to the value of natural reason in our Catholic Faith.

 

[JamesG]

You cited WIKIPEDIA. The open-source encyclopedia. By the time I got to it, this is what I read:

I see you didn’t answer any of my other quite lengthy response to your previous post. I was especially interested to see your reaction to the value of natural reason in our Catholic Faith.

yeah I’ll answer your post tomorrow I’m too tired right now.

 

[Rach620]

yeah I’ll answer your post tomorrow I’m too tired right now.

haha, good, I have a paper to finish!

 

[Hastrman]

Look, I’m obviously no economist, but capitalism seems to be here to stay, at least for the relatively near future. Why is it not possible to seek solutions *within *that economic structure, instead of referring to the greatness of medieval guilds?

I’m not talking only about medieval guilds; I’m talking about independent consultants, co-op factories, and any other method of taking ownership and control of capital and labor out of the hands of capitalists and putting it back in the hands of those who do the work. That’s syndicalism. The guild model is just the best form of that, and probably the form it will all take if such ideas ever become the norm for the economy. It still is the form it takes for lawyers and doctors, as I said.

Without the theoretical knowledge of economics, you will not see that those are steps toward fixing the problems with capitalism, because you won’t know what capitalism is, let alone what’s wrong with it.

 

[blessedtoo]

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.

And we can thank feminists for that. Folks like to argue this issue backward and so we really don’t get anywhere. When the argument begins with statements like “in today’s society, both parents MUST work to survive”, the actual point tends to get lost. This poster has made an extremely important point. Before women flooded the workforce in their attempt to “prove” their worth and value, men were paid wages that allowed them to fully provide for their families. I doubt the cost of living today is much different than it was for my parents when my dad earned $75.00/week. It’s all relative. But now, with the myriad of laws that PREVENT employers from paying higher wages to men with families, it has BECOME a necessity for both parents to work. I see this as a direct result of women entering the workforce and demanding equal pay. Those women who do want to stay home with their children, who aren’t concerned with proving their worth in the workplace, are now left with little choice because their husbands are no longer recognized as the primary breadwinners and compensated thusly.

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.

Yes, and today 3 to 4 MILLION women are beaten by, not only spouses, but boyfriends. You are kidding yourself if you think things are better for women today. In addition, the definition of “abuse” today has become so broad that it’s nearly absurd. A huge feminist money making industry is dependent on convincing women that any snide comment from the husband could qualify as “abuse”.

 

[lak611]

I’m not talking only about medieval guilds; I’m talking about independent consultants, co-op factories, and any other method of taking ownership and control of capital and labor out of the hands of capitalists and putting it back in the hands of those who do the work. That’s syndicalism. The guild model is just the best form of that, and probably the form it will all take if such ideas ever become the norm for the economy. It still is the form it takes for lawyers and doctors, as I said.

Without the theoretical knowledge of economics, you will not see that those are steps toward fixing the problems with capitalism, because you won’t know what capitalism is, let alone what’s wrong with it.

From Wikipedia, "Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labor structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Syndicalism is compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves.

Syndicalists often form alliances with other workers’ movements, including socialism, communism, and anarchism." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism.

I really do not see syndicalism as a practical economic model. It is too close to socialism and communism.

 

[Hastrman]

From Wikipedia, "Syndicalism is one of the three most common ideologies of egalitarian, pre-managed economic and labor structure, together with socialism and communism. It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally. Syndicalism is compatible with privatism, unlike communism. Communism rejects government-sanctioned private ownership and private earnings in favor of making all property legally public, and therefore directly and solely managed by the people themselves.

Syndicalists often form alliances with other workers’ movements, including socialism, communism, and anarchism." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism.

I really do not see syndicalism as a practical economic model. It is too close to socialism and communism.

I agree about that kind of syndicalism: trade unions are just societies for the protection of proletarians. But I am a hard or guild syndicalist: I favor control of labor and capital by the members of the trades themselves–everyone being their own boss. I favor guilds having the right to determine who can work in their industries, subject to a regularized process of apprenticeship (think medical school). And, because in the long run it leads to a better distribution of property and therefore more liberty, I favor limits on competition between guildmembers, as there were until recently for, again, doctors and lawyers.

Apart from insurance (provided by the guild and paid into like any other insurance company) and the association’s rules, some of which are designed to limit competition, all members of a guild are independent, therefore there is no pooling of resources or profits as in the definition given. That offends against the right of guildmembers to contract freely and independently with clients.

Wikipedia doesn’t know everything (or much of anything, on some topics).

 

[Rach620]

I agree about that kind of syndicalism: trade unions are just societies for the protection of proletarians. But I am a hard or guild syndicalist: I favor control of labor and capital by the members of the trades themselves–everyone being their own boss. I favor guilds having the right to determine who can work in their industries, subject to a regularized process of apprenticeship (think medical school). And, because in the long run it leads to a better distribution of property and therefore more liberty, I favor limits on competition between guildmembers, as there were until recently for, again, doctors and lawyers.

Apart from insurance (provided by the guild and paid into like any other insurance company) and the association’s rules, some of which are designed to limit competition, all members of a guild are independent, therefore there is no pooling of resources or profits as in the definition given. That offends against the right of guildmembers to contract freely and independently with clients.

I’m sorry, it still just sounds like a socialist pipe dream.

Again, what is so wrong with working within the system of capitalism to make it more palatable for those who must live with it? Do you actually think that the world’s economy will convert to this ‘guild syndicalist’ model?

Then again… can we get back to the topic at hand? If you’d like to discuss Belloc’s economics, start a new thread.