Feminism: whats wrong with it?

[larkin31]

Briefly, some philosophical problems with feminism are:

• It is typically based in a Rationalist notion of man. That is, it assumes the fundamental identity of every person with only his “mind”, as a separate and independent substance itself. This is ultimately their reason for denying the importance of biological reality.
• It often denies the importance or reality of essence, usually implying that all diversity and behavior is the mere product of environment/cultural institutions (evil patriarchy), and often reducing to Nominalist denial of all universals.
• It implies the primacy of matter over form, at least analogically speaking, since form runs metaphorically parallel with the masculine and matter (like ‘mater’ and Mother Earth) with the feminine. Man is to woman as form is to matter, both understood as mutually complementary aspects of a third thing (two in one flesh, offspring, substance). However, at least in the abstract, form is to be conceived as more independent of matter, insofar as it can retain its individuality in the intellect (whereas matter may only be conceived in general when separated from a form).
• Characteristic of Rationalist ideologies, its essential goal and motivation is to conquer Nature, not conform to it in peace. In that sense, it’s related to the Industrial Revolution’s misleading promise to help man be the primary inventor and manipulator of his natural constitution, finally having the means to remake Creation “as it ought to be”, or, free from external constraint.
• Its practice is arguably rooted in a political strategy for disorienting (Western) civilization by attacking its most basic unit, the family, and leading to its ultimate collapse into more primitive, eventually hunter-gatherer, conditions (since you might legitimately call civilization, in general, just the result of man’s colossal attempts at impressing and winning over woman, w/his innovatively analytic and systematic “male” brain functioning like a peacock’s feathers as a result of Darwinian sexual selection). Postmoderns regard this as the desirable “end of history” that will cure the disease of self-awareness as we return to our blissful animal condition (or something, I think).
• It’s utterly and irredeemably stupid and annoying. (I’m a little tired.)
• Etc. ad infinitum…

Just brainstorming.

This all reads to me, as, “Feminism in its extreme isn’t Catholic.”

 

[edwest2]

This all reads to me, as, “Feminism in its extreme isn’t Catholic.”

That is quite true. Radical feminists, instead of creating conditions and solutions to male-female relationship problems, walled off women, and created a gulf of separation. This class warfare is about power and control.

The Catholic approach would be based on understanding, healing and reconciliation.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect, had the following letter approved for publication by Pope John Paul II. It states with clarity, the Church’s view of this issue.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The type of feminism the Church proposes is not the feminism preached almost daily by the media. The woman must be in charge, the man is the enemy. The man disappears when a problem pregnancy occurs. He is not allowed to say anything about her body. This irrationality presupposes she became pregnant by herself in cases of consentual sex.

You will see that a primary reason for recent feminism is simply population control. Abortion had to be made available, especially to the poor. After all, the statistics showed a baby born to a poor family would be a burden on society. This denial of the intelligence of the average person and the State creating a law from “penumbras and emanations” exposes a key component of feminism for what it actually is.

Women should be treated with the utmost respect, but the porn industry obviously doesn’t believe that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[In_Spiration]

This all reads to me, as, “Feminism in its extreme isn’t Catholic.”

A) That would indicate a problem.

B) All of the problems I listed fall within the domain of natural reason; they don’t pertain to sectarian disputes (at least not very closely). They deal with philosophical questions that most people on a Catholic message board, namely the OP, would, more likely, answer in a way that conflicts with Feminism. Catholicism and Christianity tend to imply certain philosophical positions – and they’re certainly incompatible with many philosophical views. I’d argue that many tenets of Feminism cannot be reconciled with Christianity or a consistently Christian worldview.

C) Did you even consider addressing any of the specific points, even indirectly, before (what I can only, perhaps uncharitably, interpret to be) your dismissal? I mean, c’mon, at least gimme somethin’ to work with here.

 

[John21652]

Briefly, some philosophical problems with feminism are:

I think you are nearly there, but with a few exceptions. For instance -

It is typically based in a Rationalist notion of man. That is, it assumes the fundamental identity of every person with only his “mind”, as a separate and independent substance itself. This is ultimately their reason for denying the importance of biological reality.

It is actually an irrationalist approach to the notion of women. Feminism doesn’t deny the importance of biological reality, but seeks to religate it to a level of utility which in the process denigrates its role in defining femaleness. The irrationality comes from the fact that a seemingly rational approach is taken to defining feminism, but empirical tools are used to arrive at a so called “feminist philosophy”. The most obvious empirical tool is Marxism and another is intellectual and literary deconstruction, which is subjective.

It often denies the importance or reality of essence, usually implying that all diversity and behavior is the mere product of environment/cultural institutions (evil patriarchy), and often reducing to Nominalist denial of all universals.

I’m not sure what you mean by “essence” here, but you are correct in stating that femaleness and femininity are percieved as social constructs and not as a result of biology.

It implies the primacy of matter over form, at least analogically speaking, since form runs metaphorically parallel with the masculine and matter (like ‘mater’ and Mother Earth) with the feminine. Man is to woman as form is to matter, both understood as mutually complementary aspects of a third thing (two in one flesh, offspring, substance). However, at least in the abstract, form is to be conceived as more independent of matter, insofar as it can retain its individuality in the intellect (whereas matter may only be conceived in general when separated from a form).

I always figured the feminist movement was actually attempting to reform the female of the species, that is, to totally differentiate the female from the male and to deny complimentarity in the process. However, in the process, the movement has gone a long way towards destroying the notion of complimentarity, and has succeeded in placing matter over form, as you state. This has come about because the notion of complimentarity is a basic element in the Form that feminism has all but destroyed.

Characteristic of Rationalist ideologies, its essential goal and motivation is to conquer Nature, not conform to it in peace. In that sense, it’s related to the Industrial Revolution’s misleading promise to help man be the primary inventor and manipulator of his natural constitution, finally having the means to remake Creation “as it ought to be”, or, free from external constraint.

Rational thinking should not be ideological. It should be objective. For a rational philosophy to become an ideology means it has become a subjective discourse and perhaps this took place when the ‘radical’ feminists began to demand “equality” based on assumptions about the human condition which never held up to either empirical observations, or to critical rational thinking. The industrial revolution may have held a misleading promise that nature could be conquored, but if that illusory promise contained yet another illusion, which is that human nature itself could be changed, then, yes, a false ideology was given wings. However, I, for one, do not see a causal link between the rationality behind the industrial revolution and feminist’s denial of their place in the human condition.

Its practice is arguably rooted in a political strategy for disorienting (Western) civilization by attacking its most basic unit, the family, and leading to its ultimate collapse into more primitive, eventually hunter-gatherer, conditions (since you might legitimately call civilization, in general, just the result of man’s colossal attempts at impressing and winning over woman, w/his innovatively analytic and systematic “male” brain functioning like a peacock’s feathers as a result of Darwinian sexual selection). Postmoderns regard this as the desirable “end of history” that will cure the disease of self-awareness as we return to our blissful animal condition (or something, I think).

Very true. The family unit is indeed a target for the leaders of feminism, certainly since the 1960s. It is rooted in a Marxist philosophy that sees the construction and structure of western society as a tool of female repression. It is a godless philosophy and denies the spiritual nature of man. Certainly, all differences are to be abolished, however, one might suspect that a return to a hunter-gatherer tpe of society might once again see men standing guard outside the cave as their women and children find sanctuary inside!

It’s utterly and irredeemably stupid and annoying. (I’m a little tired.)

Agreed! If you weren’t so tired, the word “Illogical” might have sprung to mind!!
*

Etc. ad infinitum…

I hope not!!Actually, many women now say they don’t agree with feminism on “this”, or “that” subject and many of the yyounger ones seem to be very out of touch with their feminist ‘leaders’. Some women admit to feeling “pressured” by feminist ideology to live their lives a certain way and they are rebelling. It would seem that feminism is ripping itself apart on many levels, however, the damage done to society because of the feminists demands and the tarnishing of femaleness along the way makes it seem that there is a lot of debating and a lot of healing to be done amongst the female of the species.

Just brainstorming.

Good job!

 

[larkin31]

…It would seem that feminism is ripping itself apart on many levels, however, the damage done to society because of the feminists demands and the tarnishing of femaleness along the way makes it seem that there is a lot of debating and a lot of healing to be done amongst the female of the species.

Good job!

I see no “damage” from feminism and no “tarnishing of femaleness.” Increasing freedom is not a “damage”. Not in this country (USA), anyway.

 

[larkin31]

A) That would indicate a problem.

B) All of the problems I listed fall within the domain of natural reason; they don’t pertain to sectarian disputes (at least not very closely). They deal with philosophical questions that most people on a Catholic message board, namely the OP, would, more likely, answer in a way that conflicts with Feminism. Catholicism and Christianity tend to imply certain philosophical positions – and they’re certainly incompatible with many philosophical views. I’d argue that many tenets of Feminism cannot be reconciled with Christianity or a consistently Christian worldview.

C) Did you even consider addressing any of the specific points, even indirectly, before (what I can only, perhaps uncharitably, interpret to be) your dismissal? I mean, c’mon, at least gimme somethin’ to work with here.

I’d rather cut to the chase.

I argue against natural law and other such ideas on other threads. You can check there.

 

[John21652]

I’d rather cut to the chase.

I argue against natural law and other such ideas on other threads. You can check there.

I see no “damage” from feminism and no “tarnishing of femaleness.” Increasing freedom is not a “damage”. Not in this country (USA), anyway.

From these two quotes I can see there is a whole lot you don’t “see”.

One of the main problems of Feminism as a philosophy, if it can be called that, is the fact that it goes against the Natural Law. Intellectually it is anathema to the Natural Law and as a result, it leads to moral failings.

Now, if you see neither, as your posts indicate, then you have much “seeing” to learn.

 

[larkin31]

From these two quotes I can see there is a whole lot you don’t “see”.

One of the main problems of Feminism as a philosophy, if it can be called that, is the fact that it goes against the Natural Law. Intellectually it is anathema to the Natural Law and as a result, it leads to moral failings.

Now, if you see neither, as your posts indicate, then you have much “seeing” to learn.

Well, try making a case here, then, for our “instruction.”

For starters, I asked what “damage” has feminism caused. You did not address this.

 

[John21652]

Well, try making a case here, then, for our “instruction.”

For starters, I asked what “damage” has feminism caused. You did not address this.

Before I go about educating you, I must ask that you quickly learn to read properly and to answer questions properly and correctly, without misconstruction. You are want to do this.

Example: You state that I failed to answer a question asked by you, namely, that you asked what damage feminism has caused. However, you actually wrote *“I see no “damage” from feminism and no “tarnishing of femaleness.” Increasing freedom is not a “damage”. Not in this country (USA), anyway.” *Now, by any construction, what you wrote is a statement, not a question, yet now you suggest you asked a question which I did not answer.If you persist with changing the goal posts like this, then your ‘education’ will be painful, if not impossible. Follow me?

 

[larkin31]

Before I go about educating you, I must ask that you quickly learn to read properly and to answer questions properly and correctly, without misconstruction. You are want to do this.

Example: You state that I failed to answer a question asked by you, namely, that you asked what damage feminism has caused. However, you actually wrote *“I see no “damage” from feminism and no “tarnishing of femaleness.” Increasing freedom is not a “damage”. Not in this country (USA), anyway.” *Now, by any construction, what you wrote is a statement, not a question, yet now you suggest you asked a question which I did not answer.If you persist with changing the goal posts like this, then your ‘education’ will be painful, if not impossible. Follow me?

True, but who wants to learn from a pedant? (that was both a statement and a question)

So, are you not going to address the challenges (and implicit questions) I made? (that is another question)

 

[John21652]

True, but who wants to learn from a pedant? (that was both a statement and a question)

So, are you not going to address the challenges (and implicit questions) I made? (that is another question)

Then again, who can ever teach an obsfucant. Where I come from, questions have question marks after them.

Your last sentence is a statement with a question mark after it. Very confusing to educated “pedants”! By the way, that statement, disguised as a question, is based on an assumption. You really must stop this, you know. If, however, you do insist that it is a question, although disguised as a statement, it is very pesimistic. Cheer up. Your education is about to begin.

It’s very late here, so I’m calling it quits for the evening. On the morrow, barring the exigencies of life, I shall produce material that will knock your rigid little socks off.

 

[larkin31]

Then again, who can ever teach an obsfucant. Where I come from, questions have question marks after them.

Your last sentence is a statement with a question mark after it. Very confusing to educated “pedants”! By the way, that statement, disguised as a question, is based on an assumption. You really must stop this, you know. If, however, you do insist that it is a question, although disguised as a statement, it is very pesimistic. Cheer up. Your education is about to begin.

It’s very late here, so I’m calling it quits for the evening. On the morrow, barring the exigencies of life, I shall produce material that will knock your rigid little socks off.

bated breath

and what’s an “obsfucant”? Sounds dirty…

 

[PRmerger]

Pope John Paul II’s call for a “new feminism” with the power to transform culture, imbuing it with a decisive respect for life (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 98-99).

Indeed.

I love to shock my marginally Catholic friends and relatives by saying that I am a feminist in the way that the Pope is a feminist. In their minds, that’s akin to saying that I have subjugated all reason and education to 5th century notions of women.

As if.

I am a feminist in the way that Jesus is feminist. And the way the Church is feminist. And the way that Pope JPII was feminist. And the way that Pope B16 is feminist.

 

[In_Spiration]

The data were collected through this survey

 

[PRmerger]

I see no “damage” from feminism and no “tarnishing of femaleness.” Increasing freedom is not a “damage”. Not in this country (USA), anyway.

Freedom apart from truth is indeed damaging.

And the feminism that has divorced itself from God’s revelation, as proclaimed by the Church, has produced much damage indeed. :sad_yes:

 

[In_Spiration]

Damage? Hmmm… I think you’ve nailed us here. Can’t think of any off the top of my head. We were only criticizing feminism because we are just religiously opposed to the thought that we might not be able to oppress the feminine spirit any longer. Damn.

Wait. Some damages just came to mind. I know it may be a marginal and slight one, but does this count as a damage? Or this? More:

The rise in dual career homes has also contributed to the current divorce rate. Having two careers places additional stress on a couple. Often the wife feels that she is responsible for a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare, while the husband may feel that he is neglected by his too-busy wife. Although these seem like small matters, the negative emotions can build up over time to become serious marital issues, and eventually cause a divorce. In addition, dual career couples are better financially equipped to deal with a divorce, as they can each support themselves independently. They have less to lose and more to gain from separating. …]

Women’s liberation and the recent shift in gender roles may also be responsible for the increasing divorce rate in America. There was a time when a couple entered their marriage with a good idea of how they would run their household. Society demanded that women stay home and care for the family, while the man was expected to earn a living and play a minimal role in his children’s lives. Although this may have been stifling, it made life simpler for newlyweds. Couples now must deal with the additional stress of negotiating who will perform which duties. Conflicting expectations can cause stress and unhappiness, which in turn may lead to a divorce. Also, as women have been more empowered, they are less likely to tolerate an unkind or abusive spouse. Marriages that might have remained unhappy yet intact fifty years now frequently end in divorce.

See here and here, too. And this one.

Also, from Wikipedia’s page on sub-replacement fertility rates: “the fertility rate among non-Hispanic whites in the US, after falling to about 1.6 in the 1970s and early 1980s, had increased and is now around 1.9, or slightly below replacement level, rather than collapsing to the 1.3-1.5 level common in Europe.”

More, from an old article in Science magazine:

As fertility rates decline across the developed world, governments are offering big incentives for childbearing. Experts don’t expect them to have much effect.

The E.U. will lose between 24 million and 40 million people during each coming decade. … Population losses could bring a raft of negative economic consequences in the industrialized world, as well as greater stresses on social security and health care systems as the proportion of older citizens increases. … Some believe very low fertility rates are here to stay. … “While the additional [government] financial support is bound to be welcomed by parents, the overall effect on fertility is likely to be small.” … Both sides agree that falling fertility rates might be irreversible once they drop
below a certain level—what some demographers have begun to call the “low-fertility trap.” …

Demographers define a replacement-level [fertility] as 2.1—slightly more than a flat rate, to account for the small fraction of children who die before reaching reproductive age. Yet nearly all of the world’s industrialized nations have [fertilities] well below this magic number. … Only the United States, exceptional in the developed world, hits the replacement mark, with a [fertility] of 2.09. … Although [fertilities] remain high in some of the world’s poorest countries … the demographic transition is either under way or completed in most nations. … The process has taken place even in relatively poor countries such as Mexico, where [fertility] dropped from 6.5 to 2.5 between 1975 and 2005. … Demographers had [incorrectly] assumed that the decline would stop when replacement-level [fertilities] were reached. “During the early 1970s, everyone talked about the magic floor of replacement. … Nobody thought it would go below 2.1.” …

Several factors that make the [fertility] in the U.S. higher:] … higher rate of unwanted pregnancies, … a lower unemployment rate, and a greater tendency for women to have children earlier in life, … [and] a stronger emphasis on religion and “traditional values”

And that really is just the general stuff off the top of my head. I should probably add that when millions of people are convinced to live in sin (abortion, contraception, premarital sex – see the Sexual Revolution, divorce, adultery, selfish materialism posing as “autonomy”…), because they listened to an ideological movement, that tends to damage souls.

 

[edwest2]

The Spirit of God still moves across the earth. While those who study demographics work to spot trends and advise others, there are Catholics who are home schooling. There are Catholics who are stay at home moms.

Women’s Liberation was a man-made idea. It was divisive. It was not solution oriented. And it was an experiment. An experiment that caused harm. What is needed now is real commitment, real trust, real love and real healing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

Damage? Hmmm… I think you’ve nailed us here. Can’t think of any off the top of my head. We were only criticizing feminism because we are just religiously opposed to the thought that we might not be able to oppress the feminine spirit any longer. Damn.

Wait. Some damages just came to mind. I know it may be a marginal and slight one, but does this count as a damage? Or this? More:

The rise in dual career homes has also contributed to the current divorce rate. Having two careers places additional stress on a couple. Often the wife feels that she is responsible for a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare, while the husband may feel that he is neglected by his too-busy wife. Although these seem like small matters, the negative emotions can build up over time to become serious marital issues, and eventually cause a divorce. In addition, dual career couples are better financially equipped to deal with a divorce, as they can each support themselves independently. They have less to lose and more to gain from separating. …]

Women’s liberation and the recent shift in gender roles may also be responsible for the increasing divorce rate in America. There was a time when a couple entered their marriage with a good idea of how they would run their household. Society demanded that women stay home and care for the family, while the man was expected to earn a living and play a minimal role in his children’s lives. Although this may have been stifling, it made life simpler for newlyweds. Couples now must deal with the additional stress of negotiating who will perform which duties. Conflicting expectations can cause stress and unhappiness, which in turn may lead to a divorce. Also, as women have been more empowered, they are less likely to tolerate an unkind or abusive spouse. Marriages that might have remained unhappy yet intact fifty years now frequently end in divorce.

Ending bad marriages is a good thing. I do not consider the rise in the divorce rate as a “damage” to society any more than longer bad marriages are “damaging.” Feminism’s “contribution” to divorce is a weak case, and most of America dismisses that cause and effect suggestion.

I also do not see the causal link between feminism (as a movement) and declining fertility rates, particularly when the decline in rates occur in place with no strong feminist tradition. Secondly, here again, I do not see this as a “damage.” This is a rate change. You have not shown what the “damage” is from it.

And that really is just the general stuff off the top of my head. I should probably add that when millions of people are convinced to live in sin (abortion, contraception, premarital sex – see the Sexual Revolution, divorce, adultery, selfish materialism posing as “autonomy”…), because they listened to an ideological movement, that tends to damage souls.

All of us have damaged souls, and all these conditions existed prior to women asking for equal access to jobs, equal access to pay, equal treatment under the law, and equal punishment for equal behavior (non-biased expectations and judgment).

 

[Hastrman]

All of us have damaged souls, and all these conditions existed prior to women asking for equal access to jobs, equal access to pay, equal treatment under the law, and equal punishment for equal behavior (non-biased expectations and judgment).

Feminism is not about equality, and has not been since Simone Beauvoir. I’m curious: how much do you know about the “waves” of feminist theory? How much do you know about feminism as an analytical theory? Because the current “wave”, and its theory, are an attempt to shoehorn a Marxist class-war paradigm onto the relations of the sexes—to which they cannot apply. Marxism, after all, requires a tribal-feudal-industrial progression; the sexes were the same under all three. Therefore imposing the same model is simply inaccurate, even if an oppressor-oppressed dynamic is in effect.

Women do not have equal treatment under the law. Alimony payments are, I forget the exact number but I believe, 60% smaller than they were in the 1950s. Rapists are more likely to go free than ever. In 1905, in New York City, 1 murder in 17 involved rape; now it’s 2 in 5. I am not saying feminists are responsible for that (that could never be proved even if I thought it was the case), but plainly they haven’t helped.