Feminism, can any good come from it?

[Nancie_Lew]

mdgspencer;1914151:

This is just to answer the question below. Actually many Catholics simply take the host without taking the wine when they go to communion. I do myself (though I don’t think drinking is wrong).

an alcoholic takes only the Consecrated Bread…

I didn’t know you could take either one. Thanks for the info.

 

[MariaG]

It’s not difficult or subtle or tricky. If someone of average intelligence is interested in understanding the difference between that and the radical, pro-abortion version, it’s easy to get it. If someone has no intention of even trying to understand, they won’t.

Yup. That is it in a nutshell.

 

[JamesG]

When a flavour of feminism goes against any of the church teachings then no good can come of it.

A man would do well to rebuke a woman if she does not support the church teachings on one of the following:
premarital sex, contraception, sanctity of life, papal infallibility,eucharist, immaculate conception, and holy orders:

If a woman does not respect the churches teachings about holy orders then she won’t respect your role as the head of the family. This for me is something that I find very disrespectfull.

Until someone can prove to me that the feminist women respects all church teachings I won’t consider them marriage material.

From my experience these kinds of women always have something they are fighting against. Usually, it is contraception (because their career is more important then being a mother), papal infallibility (because they don’t think a man can be right), and holy orders (because they think a woman can be a priest).

The modern feminist women is a nightmare to date. They walk infront of you, they don’t let you open the door for them, they don’t let you pay for them, they basically just take your role as a provider and step on it. Some of them even use you as an emotional tampon while they date other men.

After all my experiences I have come to the conclusion that a feminist woman isn’t worth being married to. If a woman says she is feminist she had best explain herself or I’ll just next her.

You can try to change that nasty word (feminist) all you want but that’s like creating a new polictal party called “Nazi” and saying you are friendly to the Jews.

The word feminist is a bad word and it always will be. People who think otherwise are foolish and are just wasting their time.

 

[MariaG]

When a flavour of feminism goes against any of the church teachings then no good can come of it.

A man would do well to rebuke a woman if she does not support the church teachings on one of the following:
premarital sex, contraception, sanctity of life, papal infallibility,eucharist, immaculate conception, and holy orders:

If a woman does not respect the churches teachings about holy orders then she won’t respect your role as the head of the family. This for me is something that I find very disrespectfull.

Until someone can prove to me that the feminist women respects all church teachings I won’t consider them marriage material.

From my experience these kinds of women always have something they are fighting against. Usually, it is contraception (because their career is more important then being a mother), papal infallibility (because they don’t think a man can be right), and holy orders (because they think a woman can be a priest).

The modern feminist women is a nightmare to date. They walk infront of you, they don’t let you open the door for them, they don’t let you pay for them, they basically just take your role as a provider and step on it. Some of them even use you as an emotional tampon while they date other men.

After all my experiences I have come to the conclusion that a feminist woman isn’t worth being married to. If a woman says she is feminist she had best explain herself or I’ll just next her.

You can try to change that nasty word (feminist) all you want but that’s like creating a new polictal party called “Nazi” and saying you are friendly to the Jews.

The word feminist is a bad word and it always will be. People who think otherwise are foolish and are just wasting their time.

And this means no good has come from the historic feminist movement in the 1800’s and 1900’s?

You are lamenting the modern feminist movement, of which there is some merit to what you say. The original question though was there any good that came from the historic feminist movement of the 1800 and 1900’s. The right for women to vote (women suffrage) was brought up.

Do you think that women should not have the right to vote and it is a bad thing for them to vote?

 

[Rach620]

Jumping back in on this thread after a hiatus… I’ve been lurking

When a flavour of feminism goes against any of the church teachings then no good can come of it.

Exactly. The point is, however, that it is possible for a version of feminism to be compatible with Catholic teaching.

Until someone can prove to me that the feminist women respects all church teachings I won’t consider them marriage material.

I’m not sure whether you’d consider a Catholic, feminist woman to be ‘marriage material’ is what we’re debating here. The question has evolved to–can a Catholic woman also call herself a feminist, given that she defines ‘feminism’ in a different way than modern radical feminists?

You can try to change that nasty word (feminist) all you want but that’s like creating a new polictal party called “Nazi” and saying you are friendly to the Jews.

Gotta bring in the Nazis, do we? It does much for your argument.

The word feminist is a bad word and it always will be. People who think otherwise are foolish and are just wasting their time.

Well tell that to Pope John Paul II, who called for a ‘new feminism’ in Mulieris Dignitatem and spoke to the inherent equality of man and woman there and in Evangelium Vitae. He wasn’t pushing the radical feminist agenda, but something entirely different.

There’s no logical basis for that argument. No word is ‘bad’ in itself, and a Catholic perspective on feminism, which upholds the equality of men and women as complementary beings both created in the image of God, goes to great lengths to re-claim the word from the ‘feminists’ who have so confused it. It’s ‘foolish’ to not recognize that.

 

[Rach620]

I found this article online, which will probably help foster an understanding of the issue.

**Catholic and Feminist: Can One Be Both?

** Many Catholics, including Catholic women, have understandably reacted to the feminist attack on their faith by repudiating feminism entirely, but I do not believe that that is what the Holy Father is asking us to do. Rather, in reminding us of the abiding importance of women’s special responsibility to families, especially children, he is inviting us to formulate a Catholic understanding of feminism’s most generous goals. It is difficult to imagine a Catholic feminism that does not take account of children or that liberates women from any responsibility to them. Each day, our media offer new examples of the desperate condition of children who lack the love and security that a strong, two-parent family provides. And we all know that such families still depend heavily upon women, even if many fathers are doing more than in the past. Women do have a unique relation to the children they bear, and that relation should be understood as both a vocation and a sacred trust for which women should be honored, in the exercise of which they should be supported, and in which they themselves should take pride.

We also know that even the most devoted mothers cannot completely insulate their children against the outside world. We further know that today motherhood and family responsibilities do not normally take up all of the years of a woman’s life. Above all, we should know that the world desperately needs the active participation of Catholic women. Motherhood may manifest an essential aspect of women’s nature and, hence, shape many women’s sense of their vocation. But as a specific social role — or set of tasks and responsibilities — motherhood rarely accounts for the entirety of any woman’s, even a Catholic woman’s, vocation. And well-educated Catholic women face very special responsibilities in this regard. First, the world, beginning with their own families, sorely needs their talents. Second, their daughters and other women especially need them to develop and represent the dignity and vocation of women’s combined action at home and in the world. Finally, the example they set and the values they advocate might powerfully influence our society’s sense of an honorable and responsible feminism.
…
A Catholic feminism must be flexible and capacious enough to encompass human and divine love and all of the constraints and rewards that both afford.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

I got a job one time because of affirmative action. I wasn’t qualified for the job. There were men that wanted the job who had 35 or more years experience but I don’t care because I think women are owed jobs for past discrimination.

 

[lak611]

I got a job one time because of affirmative action. I wasn’t qualified for the job.

That is not fair.

There were men that wanted the job who had 35 or more years experience but I don’t care because I think women are owed jobs for past discrimination.

Nobody is “owed” a job that he or she is unqualified for. Providing access to education and training to get a job is one thing, but passing over a more qualified candidate is sexist, whether the person passed over happens to be male or female.

 

[dessert]

I got a job one time because of affirmative action. I wasn’t qualified for the job. There were men that wanted the job who had 35 or more years experience but I don’t care because I think women are owed jobs for past discrimination.

You did this legally and you shouldn’t feel bad about this, the rules were changed and you were there and you are a woman, that’s that. Men at our GM plant used to complain about the you know other colors of some getting jobs to fill quota and the reasons these were put there was to give justice to other people and in a way it goes to show that women are thought of as a different race but it is just a fair law and if you don’t cut it at the job they will quickly find that out and you will be out. but why take a job that you know you can’t do but then maybe you have it in you and you don’t know it. Dessert

 

[dessert]

That is not fair. Nobody is “owed” a job that he or she is unqualified for. Providing access to education and training to get a job is one thing, but passing over a more qualified candidate is sexist, whether the person passed over happens to be male or female.

Maybe the other candidtes had drug histories or bad credit reports or did not contribute to YMCA. What ever it was none of her business or yours and they are not suppose to be giving out that info to anyone.Everyone is owed a chance yes even if they are male -male or female- female. She was not owed that job as fair hiring practices are just that. OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY COOKS IN THE WORLD BECAUSE AREN’T THEY SUPPOSE TO BE FEMALE? HA HA Dessert

 

[lak611]

Maybe the other candidtes had drug histories or bad credit reports or did not contribute to YMCA. What ever it was none of her business or yours and they are not suppose to be giving out that info to anyone.Everyone is owed a chance yes even if they are male -male or female- female. She was not owed that job as fair hiring practices are just that. OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY COOKS IN THE WORLD BECAUSE AREN’T THEY SUPPOSE TO BE FEMALE? HA HA Dessert

I agree that maybe other candidates had problems (credit, drugs, etc.), but otherwise the most qualified person deserves to get hired, not somebody who did not even know how to do the job. Thankfully, the quota system is no longer in use, since the Supreme Court ruled that it is disriminatory. Actually, most restaurants have male cooks, only a few women choose that profession. Same with nurses, males are few and far between, because few men choose the profession. Although if a women is qualified to be a cook, a restaurant should hire her. And if a man is qualified to be a nurse, a hospital should hire him.

 

[dessert]

I agree that maybe other candidates had problems (credit, drugs, etc.), but otherwise the most qualified person deserves to get hired, not somebody who did not even know how to do the job. Thankfully, the quota system is no longer in use, since the Supreme Court ruled that it is disriminatory. Actually, most restaurants have male cooks, only a few women choose that profession. Same with nurses, males are few and far between, because few men choose the profession. Although if a women is qualified to be a cook, a restaurant should hire her. And if a man is qualified to be a nurse, a hospital should hire him.

When did they rule that?

 

[dessert]

One of the most wonderfull things is the story how my mom and mom-law learned how to drive.
I was about 23 and my moms were about 52 and 45. They said they wanted to drive too as my hsuband had insisted on my driving and their hubbys insisted on them not. Well one took lessons and the other just hopped in the car and my mom said teach me. Trying to teach her was like a roller coaster ride but she finnally learned and did not drive up on the golf course too often. The m m m m mmen were horrified that I was trying to liberate them except my hubby. They grimaced at me and I was in heaven thinking I was liberating them untillllll I seen them on the road a few times. And when they road with me as I didn’t know how to drive anymore and didn’ know the correct way to get to the mall anymore oh I thought I created monsters.Granted this was in the 60’s so we still you know didn’t pump our own gas the attendant did it and I used to drive all over looking for one of them when it all changed because I didn’t want to get my hands to smell like gas so I would pay any price I really like being the pasenger because I can watch more of the scenery and my hbby is somewhat like his mother as he likes to go the way he wants to go and I let him

I quess the point of this story is that I have to let God do the driving when I exercise my femininity or I will end up in the ditch or on the tee and someone swearing at me for ruining their best shot!
I like the post about education because I think this is the best point yet and i have another story about my grandpa if you want to hear it is short .
One day he said that they should have never educated girls past the age of ten and I said why grandpa.
And he said because they turn into whippersnappers and I knew he was just kidding but I thought it was some kind of a bug. Dessert

 

[lak611]

When did they rule that?

Gratz v. Bollinger (actually racial not sexual discrimination). Here’s link. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html

 

[Sixtus]

A man would do well to rebuke a woman if she does not support the church teachings on one of the following:
premarital sex, contraception, sanctity of life, papal infallibility,eucharist, immaculate conception, and holy orders:

If a woman does not respect the churches teachings about holy orders then she won’t respect your role as the head of the family. This for me is something that I find very disrespectfull.

Usually, it is contraception (because their career is more important then being a mother), papal infallibility (because they don’t think a man can be right)

Any woman who does not respect her husband as the head of the household, honour, worship and obey him should be burnt at the stake as in oldun days!!!

Like hell!!!

Who says a woman is inferior to a man? Who says she should be his personal slave/ Who says ‘he’ should be head of the table!!

Men hae careers so why not women too! Contraception why not? If the man cannot or is not willing to buy the jonnies then the responsiblity falls to the woman to take the pill!

Who supports these families? It is all well and good pontificating but what happens when the family just cannot afford another mouth to feed? Do those who say ‘no to birth control’ do they stump up the money?

No disrespects but I do not think a woman should have to agree to sell her body to the devil just to please Rome!

Who says a man is ‘head of the table’! Why should not a woman be? I abdicate that role to women any and every day.

 

[dessert]

Gratz v. Bollinger (actually racial not sexual discrimination). Here’s link. law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZS.html

I just tried to read through it and I’ve never read law before so it is beyond me but I believe one of them was a woman. Jennifer Gratz correct? Oh the law is so complicated. Dessert

 

[lak611]

I just tried to read through it and I’ve never read law before so it is beyond me but I believe one of them was a woman. Jennifer Gratz correct? Oh the law is so complicated. Dessert

Jennifer Gratz sued University of Michigan because she did not get admitted since she was white, and the University gave extra points to minority groups on the admissions. She won the case.

 

[Rach620]

Jennifer Gratz sued University of Michigan because she did not get admitted since she was white, and the University gave extra points to minority groups on the admissions. She won the case.

You’re mostly right on the affirmative action thing, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that.

The Gratz case had to do with affirmative action based on racial classifications. In constitutional law, classifications of citizens (for the purposes of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment) based on race are subject to what is called “strict scrutiny”.

That means that in order for an affirmative action plan to be allowed, the state must show that the program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The ‘quota’ system at the University of Michigan, which was being challenged, didn’t fit the ‘narrowly tailored’ criteria, so it was thrown out, but the SCOTUS did say that it is still okay to use race as a classification in admissions.

Now that is all in terms of race. GENDER classifications, which we are talking about here, are different when it comes to constitutional law. The latest precedent shows that SCOTUS uses an ‘intermediate’ level of scrutiny, meaning it’s not as hard for a gender-based affirmative action program to pass as it is for a racially-based one to. That’s bad if you oppose affirmative action for women, good if you support it.

 

[Rach620]

I got a job one time because of affirmative action. I wasn’t qualified for the job. There were men that wanted the job who had 35 or more years experience but I don’t care because I think women are owed jobs for past discrimination.

Ugh. That attitude’s not going to get us anywhere.

Since when is anyone, male or female, owed a job? It’s nowhere near the government’s responsibility to provide for your employment; all the government must provide is equality of opportunity. Affirmative action violates that principle.

Besides, this sense of entitlement to something because of ‘past wrongs’ isn’t doing anything to improve our political/social situation. If others have basically the same (or better) qualifications than yours, they deserve the job, regardless of their gender, race, etc.

Just because you personally benefit from a policy doesn’t make it the right one. Whatever happened to sacrificing a bit for the common good? And why don’t you put yourself in the shoes of the woman rejected from the Univ of Michigan law school, whose place was given to a much less qualified student, all because she was white? The road goes both ways.

 

[MariaG]

When a flavour of feminism goes against any of the church teachings then no good can come of it.

A man would do well to rebuke a woman if she does not support the church teachings on one of the following:
premarital sex, contraception, sanctity of life, papal infallibility,eucharist, immaculate conception, and holy orders:

If a woman does not respect the churches teachings about holy orders then she won’t respect your role as the head of the family. This for me is something that I find very disrespectfull.

Until someone can prove to me that the feminist women respects all church teachings I won’t consider them marriage material.

From my experience these kinds of women always have something they are fighting against. Usually, it is contraception (because their career is more important then being a mother), papal infallibility (because they don’t think a man can be right), and holy orders (because they think a woman can be a priest).

The modern feminist women is a nightmare to date. They walk infront of you, they don’t let you open the door for them, they don’t let you pay for them, they basically just take your role as a provider and step on it. Some of them even use you as an emotional tampon while they date other men.

After all my experiences I have come to the conclusion that a feminist woman isn’t worth being married to. If a woman says she is feminist she had best explain herself or I’ll just next her.

You can try to change that nasty word (feminist) all you want but that’s like creating a new polictal party called “Nazi” and saying you are friendly to the Jews.

The word feminist is a bad word and it always will be. People who think otherwise are foolish and are just wasting their time.

Any woman who does not respect her husband as the head of the household, honour, worship and obey him should be burnt at the stake as in oldun days!!!

Like hell!!!

Was yours a serious post? As a Catholic Christian, these are really your thoughts or are they sacastic? No little smiles or such so I read your tone as completely serious and respond as such.

Could you please highlight in JamesG post where he said we need to worship our husbands or be burnt at the stake.

Who says a woman is inferior to a man? Who says she should be his personal slave/ Who says ‘he’ should be head of the table!!

Again, could you highlight in JamesG’s post where he says a wife should be a personal slave? In fact, I think he was lamenting the fact that women do not want to be taken care of more by men.

And it is the head of the household. And God said it.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

Men hae careers so why not women too! Contraception why not? If the man cannot or is not willing to buy the jonnies then the responsiblity falls to the woman to take the pill!

Again highlight where JamesG said women should not have careers. He did however, have a problem with women who put their careers over family. People should have a similar problem with men who do the same because “providing” for ones’ family does not mean careers should come before family.

Here again, I am having a hard time thinking yours is actually a serious post, but your “tone” does not indicate this. You call yourself a commited Catholic in other areas yet you support artificial birth control?

Who supports these families? It is all well and good pontificating but what happens when the family just cannot afford another mouth to feed? Do those who say ‘no to birth control’ do they stump up the money?

No disrespects but I do not think a woman should have to agree to sell her body to the devil just to please Rome!

Who says a man is ‘head of the table’! Why should not a woman be? I abdicate that role to women any and every day

Truly, are you a self confessed life-long committed practicing catholic serious? If so, you really need to figure out what being a committed Catholic really means. If not, you really need to use some smilies (like ) to help others read the tone of your post.

God Bless,
Maria