Feminism: whats wrong with it?

[PRmerger]

If I was to read this thread without knowing the prevailing attitudes about women who are educated (beyond highschool) and have jobs (other than in the home), then I would be terribly dismayed. I’m sorry if you don’t think that your daughter’s should be allowed to attend college and graduate school and be a part of society, it’s a shame.

Huh? What orthodox Catholic who’s against secular feminism has proposed that our daughters shouldn’t attend college and grad school and be a part of society?

 

[PRmerger]

What will you do when there is a woman President of the United States one day (and I don’t mean the likes of Palin, or the idiot from Minnesota)? Will you say that the only reason she is president is because of some Marxist conspiracy?

I suppose we’ll say the same thing we do when there was a woman Speaker of the House. Or a woman Prime Minister. Or a woman physician. Or a woman dean of a college.

We’ll thank the Catholic Church for promoting western civilization and women’s rights.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

As that article tells us, Engel’s wrote that “… that a woman’s subordination is not a result of her biologic disposition but of social relations.” It never seemed to occur to either Engels, or those who subsequently took up the feminist cause, that social relations might have actually sprung from the biologic disposition of women!

I would like a clear answer to the following question: is it your opinion that women are biologically subordinate to men and should play a subordinate role and society? Furthermore, do you believe that social relations have nothing to do with the submissiveness of women in the past?

Opting for a career for selfish reasons is harmful to self, family and society.

Can you identify some “selfish” reasons a woman might choose to have a career?

Women who do marry, limit their pregnancies according to job demands, and also increase the baby’s health risks the further the woman is from peak fertility age.

So what?

 

[John21652]

I would like a clear answer to the following question: is it your opinion that women are biologically subordinate to men and should play a subordinate role and society? Furthermore, do you believe that social relations have nothing to do with the submissiveness of women in the past?

The answer to your first question, which is do I think women are biologically subordinate to men, is an easy one. The answer is “No!” Why would I think that? Or anyone else think that, for that matter?

You question contains assumptions which you have probably never addressed before.
Firstly, what do you mean by “submissiveness of women in the past”? Secondly, why would you suggest that women played a subordinate role in society? Thirdly, even if women should somehow be construed by someone as being biologically subordinate, why would it follow that they must be subordinate in society? My question to you is, in what way do you think women were biologically subordinate and in what way did women play a subordinate role in society?

And a word of advice - please don’t ask multiple questions of different posters in the one post. It’s confusing and bad manners.

 

[larkin31]

I’ll answer.

I would like a clear answer to the following question: is it your opinion that women are biologically subordinate to men

Absolutely not.

and should play a subordinate role and society?

Absolutely not. ANd I will go further and claim that women can do any job that a man can do except produce and contribute sperm to fertilization.

Furthermore, do you believe that social relations have nothing to do with the submissiveness of women in the past?

Categorically no. Western culture and religion (of the European varieties of origin) have a well-established and in some cases very rigid patriarchal history. And certainly, in the time of Marx and for the next 50 years, the cult of femininity took on an even more passive, submissive, and weak set of expectations, coupled with a flowering of a cult of domesticity for the entire family, but particularly for women.

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely not. ANd I will go further and claim that women can do any job that a man can do except produce and contribute sperm to fertilization.

Perhaps.

But, even if she does the same “job” that a man does, there’s one thing she can never be:

a father.

Oh, and a priest, too.

 

[Hastrman]

Huh? What orthodox Catholic who’s against secular feminism has proposed that our daughters shouldn’t attend college and grad school and be a part of society?

It’s actually funny, my grandmother was forced to go to college by her father, even though she didn’t want to.

 

[John21652]

I’ll answer.

Absolutely not.

Absolutely not. ANd I will go further and claim that women can do any job that a man can do except produce and contribute sperm to fertilization.

I thought a more positive sentence would have been “…can do any job that a man can do plus produce ova and have babies.” Instead, you switched your focus and became negative by writing about what men can do and woman can’t.

Categorically no. Western culture and religion (of the European varieties of origin) have a well-established and in some cases very rigid patriarchal history. And certainly, in the time of Marx and for the next 50 years, the cult of femininity took on an even more passive, submissive, and weak set of expectations, coupled with a flowering of a cult of domesticity for the entire family, but particularly for women.

I would contend that the heirarchical nature of western societies was quite superficial. Women had a power that feminists have never acknowledged.

Your statement about a “cult of domesticity” shows a real bias and mindset against the nuclear family. To use the term “cult” is to insult and denigrate the entire human history of the nuclear family. That’s a Marxist trick. In the process, womanhood is denigrated, not liberated.

As for religion being Patriarchical, well, yes. Patriarchy has many connotations, of course. The Patriarchical heirarchy actually starts with God the Father. However, God the Father’s Son’s Mother is highly venerated for her exclusively female role as mother. What is often forgotten is that she was also His nurterer and teacher for around thirty years. Quite an impact her role as mother had on the world, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

However, God the Father’s Son’s Mother is highly venerated for her exclusively female role as mother. What is often forgotten is that she was also His nurterer and teacher for around thirty years. Quite an impact her role as mother had on the world, don’t you think?

Indeed.

Reminds me of the story of the 5 yr old boy and girl playing on a playground, arguing about who gets to be the captain of the ship. After a few rounds of, “No, I get to be the captain. You’re the first mate!”, the little girl finally “concedes”, *"Ok, you get to be the captain…
*

<wait for it…wait for it…>

but I get to be the* mother** of the captain."*

 

[Hastrman]

Plainly larkin31 thinks history begins c. 1840, since she thinks of the “Cult of Domesticity” has anything to do with the 6000 year tradition of the West.

Remember that Eddy Izzard bit where he’s talking about how Americans are impressed by a thing being restored to its condition of 50 years ago: “What?! Nobody was alive back then!”

It’s frankly provincial, that you think of the petty local customs of the past two centuries or so constitute the tradition we here are concerned to defend. The tradition I am defending is that described in Regine Pernoud’s “Women in the Days of Cathedrals”, and no other. In High Medieval France, women could own property, conduct trades and crafts, file lawsuits, give evidence and present defenses in court, and, oh yeah, vote—and also gloried in the roles of wife, mother, and nun as no women have in all of history. So it is highly quaint, like a small child’s concept of the Olden Days, for an inheritor of the rank patriarchy that was the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and all forms of Liberalism, to get self-righteous with those of us who crowned a woman Queen of Heaven and treasure a story of her revising the very timetable of the Messiah himself.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Plainly larkin31 thinks history begins c. 1840, since she thinks of the “Cult of Domesticity” has anything to do with the 6000 year tradition of the West.

Remember that Eddy Izzard bit where he’s talking about how Americans are impressed by a thing being restored to its condition of 50 years ago: “What?! Nobody was alive back then!”

It’s frankly provincial, that you think of the petty local customs of the past two centuries or so constitute the tradition we here are concerned to defend. The tradition I am defending is that described in Regine Pernoud’s “Women in the Days of Cathedrals”, and no other. In High Medieval France, women could own property, conduct trades and crafts, file lawsuits, give evidence and present defenses in court, and, oh yeah, vote—and also gloried in the roles of wife, mother, and nun as no women have in all of history. So it is highly quaint, like a small child’s concept of the Olden Days, for an inheritor of the rank patriarchy that was the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and all forms of Liberalism, to get self-righteous with those of us who crowned a woman Queen of Heaven and treasure a story of her revising the very timetable of the Messiah himself.

Wow, Hastrman. That is really great insight into the context when Jesus said “Woman, how does this concern of yours affect me? My hour has not yet come.” His words indicated He was not quite ready (to start His ministry), but He did His Mother’s bidding anyway, changing the water to wine. Some feminine power there!

I can’t help but wonder why Protestants continue to have difficulty and disbelief with the position of the Blessed Virgin Mary holds, that she is Queen of the Heavens.
,

 

[Hastrman]

Wow, Hastrman. That is really great insight into the context when Jesus said “Woman, how does this concern of yours affect me? My hour has not yet come.” His words indicated He was not quite ready (to start His ministry), but He did His Mother’s bidding anyway, changing the water to wine. Some feminine power there!

I can’t help but wonder why Protestants continue to have difficulty and disbelief with the position of the Blessed Virgin Mary holds, that she is Queen of the Heavens.
,

I…um…thank you. I actually think I was being a little harsh (I get annoyed about this particular topic). But the Wedding at Cana is a fairly common “proof text” for Mary’s intercessory role; I can’t claim much credit for it.

In the book I mentioned (I think it’s out of print but it’s fairly easy to get) Pernoud talks about a writer who says the Church didn’t even acknowledge that women had souls, until the 15th century. She says something like, “Oh, okay, then please explain all the virgin martyrs, all the nuns, Sts. Helena and Monica and their influence on their respective sons, and, oh yeah, the cult of the Virgin Mary? Nope. The Church didn’t think any of them had souls, apparently.”

It’s actually better the way she says it; I didn’t know French people could kvetsch.

 

[larkin31]

I thought a more positive sentence would have been “…can do any job that a man can do plus produce ova and have babies.” Instead, you switched your focus and became negative by writing about what men can do and woman can’t.

I would contend that the heirarchical nature of western societies was quite superficial. Women had a power that feminists have never acknowledged.

Your statement about a “cult of domesticity” shows a real bias and mindset against the nuclear family. To use the term “cult” is to insult and denigrate the entire human history of the nuclear family. That’s a Marxist trick. In the process, womanhood is denigrated, not liberated.

Are you certain that “God” has a human gender? Are you claiming this?

Feminism does NOT reject the entire history of the human family, nor does the phrase “the cult of femininity and domesticity.” You can read about it if you would like. In the same way that calling Koresh’s worship a “cult of Christianity” is not to reject all of Christianity.

Furthermore, feminism fully sees and recognizes the power that women have had through history. Of course, every prisoner is master of her own cell.

And, I have no bias against the family. I have been married for 22 years, I have two children, I am very middle class in my values, my mother (a widow) now lives near me and I take care of her. I tell my students that Mother’s Day is one of the most important days on our calendar (much more important than one’s own birthday).

Are you married?

 

[John21652]

Are you certain that “God” has a human gender? Are you claiming this?

No.

Feminism does NOT reject the entire history of the human family, nor does the phrase “the cult of femininity and domesticity.” You can read about it if you would like. In the same way that calling Koresh’s worship a “cult of Christianity” is not to reject all of Christianity.

Larkin, my response was concerning the nuclear family, not the entirety of Christianity. My criticism of your use of the word “cult” was in relation to the nuclear family. Your answer, however, suggests that my response was about Christianity. You have, as you have done on other occasions, totally altered the subject of my response and framed your answer accordingly.

Furthermore, feminism fully sees and recognizes the power that women have had through history. Of course, every prisoner is master of her own cell.

I contend that you are wrong on the first point and I suspect you know it, because you added a little sarcastic qualifier to your comment. Your use of the word “cell” suggests that you have a pessimistic view of the condition of women through the ages and, specifically, in relation to the ties of family life.

And, I have no bias against the family. I have been married for 22 years, I have two children, I am very middle class in my values, my mother (a widow) now lives near me and I take care of her. I tell my students that Mother’s Day is one of the most important days on our calendar (much more important than one’s own birthday).

Then why do you spout off with ideas and attitudes which have as their basis an ideological bias against the family unit? It is written in black and white for anyone to read that modern feminism has Marxism as its generating feature.

As for your roles as teacher, mother and carer towards your own mother, that’s fabulous. I, for one, would say that your role is uniquely feminine and uniquely important in maintaining what is important in human society. To be mother and a daughter are not roles one can walk away from without creating great discord. I sincerely hope you do not feel as though you are in a “cell” which you find ‘oppressive’.

I think you are right in telling your students that Mother’s Day is more important than personal birthdays. It demonstrates an attempt by you to inculcate the values of unselfishness and thoughtfullness to others. Good on you! But…most wont truly “get it” until they have their own kids!!

Are you married?

Seventeen years and five kids.

And yes, I feel ‘oppressed’ sometimes.

 

[larkin31]

No.

Larkin, my response I contend that you are wrong on the first point and I suspect you know it, because you added a little sarcastic qualifier to your comment. Your use of the word “cell” suggests that you have a pessimistic view of the condition of women through the ages and, specifically, in relation to the ties of family life.was concerning the nuclear family, not the entirety of Christianity. My criticism of your use of the word “cult” was in relation to the nuclear family. Your answer, however, suggests that my response was about Christianity. You have, as you have done on other occasions, totally altered the subject of my response and framed your answer accordingly.

Neither of the terms I used is a criticism of what is referred to as The nuclear family." This is why I suggested that you read about them. And then I added my own details, so that you could see that I have no bias against “nuclear families.”

secondly, I do not have a pessimistic view of women through history. You are misreading one comment for an entire perspective.

Then why do you spout off with ideas and attitudes which have as their basis an ideological bias against the family unit?

Cuz they don’t.

It is written in black and white for anyone to read that modern feminism has Marxism as its generating feature.

This is written only by those who are wrong to claim so.

As for your roles as teacher, mother and carer towards your own mother, that’s fabulous. I, for one, would say that your role is uniquely feminine and uniquely important in maintaining what is important in human society. To be mother and a daughter are not roles one can walk away from without creating great discord. I sincerely hope you do not feel as though you are in a “cell” which you find ‘oppressive’.

Um, I’m a man. Are you allowing me to gender cross?

I think you are right in telling your students that Mother’s Day is more important than personal birthdays. It demonstrates an attempt by you to inculcate the values of unselfishness and thoughtfullness to others. Good on you! But…most wont truly “get it” until they have their own kids!!

do you acknowledge my respect of the nuclear family? THAT was the point I mentioned it to you.

 

[In_Spiration]

Just noticed this.

Can you identify some “selfish” reasons a woman might choose to have a career?

Will you identify precisely how many you have in mind by “some”? I’ll just limit myself to the first ten I can think of for one letter. (You were hoping I would be overwhelmed and frozen by choice; weren’t you?)

1. 
   *]Prada
   *]Power
   *]Popularity
   *]Pride
   *]Projection (e.g., she projects her own wealth & status fascination onto her peers’ values)
   *]Penis envy
   *]Pedicures
   *]Pickiness (a.k.a. Princess Complex; e.g., she’s wants Prince Charming, but no men are worthy of her – nor do they satisfy her detailed checklist)
   *]Perfect decorating
   *]Pretentious self-aggrandizement
   *]Plastic surgery
   *]Personal trainers
   *]Pet pampering
   
   Oops, I think I went over by a few. Honestly, though, could you really not fathom how anyone would possibly opt for a career out of selfishness? Men do it too. Some neglect family duties, work insane hours to get that pay raise (gotta have the wood-grain steering wheel; am I right?). Others want to live the bachelor’s paradise and must be able to afford the requisite bachelor pad so that they’re never obliged to stick with one woman, free to promiscuously savor their hedonistic fantasies. Women often would rather focus on “me time” than concern themselves with the burden of, y’know, responsibility for another’s life/care or something.
   
   I’m tired and I’m starting to feel that “overwhelmed by choice” thing, so I’ll just stop here and see if anyone actually denies that lots of people have bad priorities.
   

   So what?

   Read my other posts. Larkin asked about damages, you see, and I pointed out how marriage and fertility rates have an important connection to the well-being of a society, its economy, its future, its cohesion. I believe the tiny section you quoted was part of a larger one in which I was either suggesting the correlation between career women and the decline in marriage, which further leads to lower fertility rates, and/or highlighting that, even when a career woman does decide she can spare some time for a co-partner, she usually won’t have time for many kids and thus still plays a part in our sub-replacement-rate fertility. The further a woman is from peak fertility, the greater odds of defects and/or complications, and I consider health risks to be an undesirable sort of thing.
   
   In any event, it seems that a lot of folks in our country are finally beginning to recognize the true face of feminism, so there’s hope for our future. And by “face”, I of course mean “faces”, as it’s quite clear this movement has adapted to widespread criticism by becoming semantically flexible and argumentatively elusive.

 

[larkin31]

Read my other posts. Larkin asked about damages, you see, and I pointed out how marriage and fertility rates have an important connection to the well-being of a society, its economy, its future, its cohesion. I believe the tiny section you quoted was part of a larger one in which I was either suggesting the correlation between career women and the decline in marriage, which further leads to lower fertility rates, and/or highlighting that, even when a career woman does decide she can spare some time for a co-partner, she usually won’t have time for many kids and thus still plays a part in our sub-replacement-rate fertility. The further a woman is from peak fertility, the greater odds of defects and/or complications, and I consider health risks to be an undesirable sort of thing.

You have shown no causal relationship between feminism and declining birth rates. Indeed, you have shown no examination of the causes of a declining birth rate in any country. Moreover, you have shown no real damage done by a declining birth rate. Birth rates have risen and fallen for millenia, and yet you have shown no damage done to society by either its rising or its falling.

 

[In_Spiration]

Arguing at CA is tedious anyway one puts it. I have no interest in trying to persuade you of anything. …attempts to persuade…] As I said, I do not comment on what I am not interested in, and I am not here to debate or persuade.

[Proceeds to argue…]

Hmmm… I get the strange feeling you’re not being 100% up front with me, larkin. Oh, wait – I think I see what you did there! Passive aggression? No wonder everyone keeps mistaking you for a woman.

Look, it’s BurkinaFaso’s turn to peacefully deliver inoffensive, non-threatening suggestions to my posts. You and I had our moments; and we will always have page 2. Plus, I would never wish to bother anyone from his noble, straightforward, and unsophisticated (the literal, root sense of ‘not artificial’, of course) quest for the honest Truth through the impartial, open-minded discussion of new ideas and theories. I don’t think I’m up for that level of maturity though. (See, it’s not you; it’s me.) So I can just leave your commentary be, to lie by itself, untouched by my incendiary polemics and macho head games.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm… I get the strange feeling you’re not being 100% up front with me, larkin. Oh, wait – I think I see what you did there! Passive aggression? No wonder everyone keeps mistaking you for a woman.

LOL!

Passive-aggressive seems to be the theme, to be sure!

 

[larkin31]

Hmmm… I get the strange feeling you’re not being 100% up front with me, larkin. Oh, wait – I think I see what you did there! Passive aggression? No wonder everyone keeps mistaking you for a woman.

Look, it’s BurkinaFaso’s turn to peacefully deliver inoffensive, non-threatening suggestions to my posts. You and I had our moments; and we will always have page 2. Plus, I would never wish to bother anyone from his noble, straightforward, and unsophisticated (the literal, root sense of ‘not artificial’, of course) quest for the honest Truth through the impartial, open-minded discussion of new ideas and theories. I don’t think I’m up for that level of maturity though. (See, it’s not you; it’s me.) So I can just leave your commentary be, to lie by itself, untouched by my incendiary polemics and macho head games.

Huh? Is this all sarcasm?

What are you talking about? All I said is that “arguing” is tedious here. You seem to have taken this as some sort of slight, which I really don’t understand.

If we have had some sort of a “past,” you should know that I have no recollection of it and I do not remember ever having seen your name before. This is to demonstrate how uninvolved I am in this at a personal level.