Feminist "Philosophy"

[Warrenton]

The Feminist success is a failure

How do you define success then?

Whoever accepts oppression and abuse the most quietly and submissively wins:shrug:

As to the latter, correct.

As to the former, it cannot really be defined in the present political context. It is a set with nothing in it.

 

[Warrenton]

Oh really?

So I suppose you object to people labeling themselves Catholic philosophers or Humanist philosophers too

It depends on what the label modifies. But yes, if people attempt to define a Catholic philosophy solely because they, the proponents, happen to be Catholic, I would object.

 

[John21652]

An article in an Australian newspaper, commenting on the recent visit by Oprah Winfrey.
Why all the adulation over Oprah.

The article ends with this -

Bereft of their own moral compass, the women of the world turn to Oprah for spiritual guidance they can’t find in the real world.

 

[Timothy17]

Everything feminist I have ever read ultimately concludes that women ought to become, for all intents and purposes, more like men ; that is, to be manly. In coming to such conclusions it appears that they must have originally harboured an unnatural inferiority complex, and authentic feminism is sacrificed and victimized and replaced with a feminized masculinity.

Expressions such as putting on your “big girl panties (see last post of first thread),” for example, are clearly a feminized version of the masculine admonishment to step up and take responsibility, etc.

Since feminism routinely and almost exclusively encourages and pressures women to express and highlight their own egos, to constantly assert their individuality, it does them a serious disadvantage, as this abhors most people, because it makes them appear threatening and unaproachable, as ego so expressed indicates an authoritarian personality. The feminist’s ego and sense of identity becomes an altar that others are expected to make sacrifice upon to appease that ego’s wrath, anger or sense of being.

Let me say this : feminism appears to me to be little more than another manifestation of the gnostic/occultic perversion that man and man alone (exclusively) is perfect or perfectible, and woman must, therefore, become man in order to be conjoined to perfection. It is appears to me that for such reasons societies like the Masons are exclusively male.

Christians know that God Himself makes us male and female, and so our gender identities have their roots in God. Science confirms that before we are anything, the first thing we are is either male or female, and the rest of our natural composition is built upon that foundation, as it were. God made man to be the image and reflection of His glory, and woman, the image and reflection of man’s, which is why women in Christian societies were most frequently given the greatest honours in attire, lifestyle, and respects. They were routinely afforded every luxury. When the man prospered, she principally enjoyed the first and foremost part of this prospering. His position and success in this life was chiefly expressed and indicated by the glories (usually luxuries) he afforded to his wife (and his children).

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’ll put it into black and white, in plain English, so there can be no misundrstandings, or misconstructions. Feminism is a purely gender based philosophy. By definition it is gender based. It is also gender biased. Agian by definition. It can never be “equal” to philosophy by men.

There are male Feminist philosophers.

They seem to be a small minority, but they do exist. Moreover, there are plenty of philosophies dominated by the issue of gender. Modern day Muslim philosophy comes to mind.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As to the latter, correct.

As to the former, it cannot really be defined in the present political context. It is a set with nothing in it.

So you refuse to give me a straight answer then.

Thus, I can only conclude that you don’t have a good answer.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It depends on what the label modifies. But yes, if people attempt to define a Catholic philosophy solely because they, the proponents, happen to be Catholic, I would object.

I suggest you never investigate Catholic theology then (to avoid getting upset). Its all about defining the Catholic philosophy and worldview.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Everything feminist I have ever read ultimately concludes that women ought to become, for all intents and purposes, more like men ; that is, to be manly. In coming to such conclusions it appears that they must have originally harboured an unnatural inferiority complex, and authentic feminism is sacrificed and victimized and replaced with a feminized masculinity.

Expressions such as putting on your “big girl panties (see last post of first thread),” for example, are clearly a feminized version of the masculine admonishment to step up and take responsibility, etc.

Since feminism routinely and almost exclusively encourages and pressures women to express and highlight their own egos, to constantly assert their individuality, it does them a serious disadvantage, as this abhors most people, because it makes them appear threatening and unaproachable, as ego so expressed indicates an authoritarian personality. The feminist’s ego and sense of identity becomes an altar that others are expected to make sacrifice upon to appease that ego’s wrath, anger or sense of being.

Let me say this : feminism appears to me to be little more than another manifestation of the gnostic/occultic perversion that man and man alone (exclusively) is perfect or perfectible, and woman must, therefore, become man in order to be conjoined to perfection. It is appears to me that for such reasons societies like the Masons are exclusively male.

Christians know that God Himself makes us male and female, and so our gender identities have their roots in God. Science confirms that before we are anything, the first thing we are is either male or female, and the rest of our natural composition is built upon that foundation, as it were. God made man to be the image and reflection of His glory, and woman, the image and reflection of man’s, which is why women in Christian societies were most frequently given the greatest honours in attire, lifestyle, and respects. They were routinely afforded every luxury. When the man prospered, she principally enjoyed the first and foremost part of this prospering. His position and success in this life was chiefly expressed and indicated by the glories (usually luxuries) he afforded to his wife (and his children).

Pax Christi,
Tim

Its not quite that simple.

For one thing Catholicism and the other Christian churches in the West did argue for a long time that women were weaker, intellectually inferior, etc. As Pope John Paul II admitted here:

1. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity. Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry (source: Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html).

Its hard to say how much of the misogyny of pre-modern Western societies was due to the influence of the Christian churches and how much was beyond the control or influence of the churches. However the fact that it was a factor is undeniable.

Priests and pastors wrote a great deal about how women were too weak and emotional to be trusted with political power, or for that matter any autonomy from their fathers/husbands. Such writings were often referenced when barring women from professions like the law or political office.

The ideal woman (according to this misogynistic viewpoint) was modest, quiet, submissive, and obedient. Traits like strength, self-discipline, and intellect were considered masculine.

As a result, when people today talk about Biblical femininity (or far that matter authentic Catholic femininity), feminists and independent women of all kinds think of the old ideas of female inferiority and weakness.

This may not be fair, but it is certainly understandable.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Everything feminist I have ever read ultimately concludes that women ought to become, for all intents and purposes, more like men ; that is, to be manly. In coming to such conclusions it appears that they must have originally harboured an unnatural inferiority complex, and authentic feminism is sacrificed and victimized and replaced with a feminized masculinity.
God made man to be the image and reflection of His glory, and woman, the image and reflection of man’s, which is why women in Christian societies were most frequently given the greatest honours in attire, lifestyle, and respects. They were routinely afforded every luxury. When the man prospered, she principally enjoyed the first and foremost part of this prospering. His position and success in this life was chiefly expressed and indicated by the glories (usually luxuries) he afforded to his wife (and his children).

Pax Christi,
Tim

I suppose the issue is how one defines masculinity and femininity.

If traits like strength, intellect, self-discipline, leadership, and pragmatism are all considered masculine, then any woman who is practical, intelligent, strong, and independent is automatically unfeminine.

It should also be noted that the idea that Man is in the image and reflection of God’s glory, and Woman is in the image and reflection of Man’s glory, has often been used in the past to argue for male superiority and female inferiority. It even makes sense if you assume that the closer someone is to God the better they are.

Moreover, what proof do you have (if any) for the extraordinary claim that when Christian men prospered their wives were usually the main beneficiaries?

 

[BKulash_eski]

I agree with you women are equal to men, with the axception to physically. As a matter of fact they are probably better than a man. They assume a subserviant(Sacrament of Marriage). What man do you know that can do that, or even would if he could.

 

[Warrenton]

So you refuse to give me a straight answer then.

Thus, I can only conclude that you don’t have a good answer.

I agreed with your statement that the one who bears suffering with the greatest patience is the best.

I said that there is no success in the modern political context.

This is something we explored in some detail in the great Franco debate.

This is a Catholic forum, so I feel free to make certain assumptions regarding how terms will be understood. Naturally, I do not expect you to follow the assumption, coming as you do from an angry, atheist standpoint.

You are no doubt familiar with Tolstoy’s comment that law is nothing more than institutionalized violence.

It is view with which I am in substantial agreement, and would say that politics has devolved to little more than creating and enforcing laws on a more or less unwilling populace. As you said of Franco, there is no pride or honor in such a victory.

Alles klar?

 

[inocente]

A viewpoint is not the same thing as philosophy, which is what most feminist “philosophy” seems to amount to (I admit that my impression may be the fault of the way feminism is portrayed).

But for example, Carol Gilligan In a Different Voice gave males and females moral dilemmas. Most males took what she calls a justice perspective (the paramount need for moral rules, whether absolutist or relativist) while most females took a care perspective (the need to resolve conflicting responsibilities to minimize suffering). She has her critics and might raise the hairs on Catholic necks but resurrects interesting questions about systems of ethics that aren’t at all about rules or strong principles, and how to get to a half-way house.

I certainly don’t accuse them of lowering any standards. They were low before the feminists.

 

[Warrenton]

I suggest you never investigate Catholic theology then (to avoid getting upset). Its all about defining the Catholic philosophy and worldview.

I am not sure about this statement.

Catholic theology is the study of the nature of God, generally speaking.

Catholics understand God through the Church - which gives us the evidence from which we can make conclusions about God’s nature.

In contrast, “catholic philosophy” (which, by the bye, strikes the Catholic ear with something of the odd tone of “episcopalian bishop” ) seeks to define, or reconcile, universal knowledge with the revealed truths of our faith. That philosophy, in turn, shapes the worldview, although crediting sacred tradition as we do, there is a reciprocity between the two that departs somewhat from a more materialist approach, if that is the right word.

 

[Warrenton]

But for example, Carol Gilligan In a Different Voice gave males and females moral dilemmas. Most males took what she calls a justice perspective (the paramount need for moral rules, whether absolutist or relativist) while most females took a care perspective (the need to resolve conflicting responsibilities to minimize suffering).

The problem with Gilligan’s premise is, to me, that she raises a false dichotomy. If men value rights, it is out of care for others. If women care for others, it is because it is right to care for them.

If there are no rights, and if it is not right to care for others, then “most” men and women (according to her) are wrong. They are equal in their wrongness, and the voice is not really different.

Of course, she might take the rather predictable, and tedious defense that they are wrong differently. If she were a math teacher, she would spend countless hours investigating why Johnny said 2 plus 2 equals 5, and why Mary said 2 plus 2 equals 3. All I could say is that they are both wrong, and leave it at that.

 

[inocente]

The problem with Gilligan’s premise is, to me, that she raises a false dichotomy. If men value rights, it is out of care for others. If women care for others, it is because it is right to care for them.

If there are no rights, and if it is not right to care for others, then “most” men and women (according to her) are wrong. They are equal in their wrongness, and the voice is not really different.

Of course, she might take the rather predictable, and tedious defense that they are wrong differently. If she were a math teacher, she would spend countless hours investigating why Johnny said 2 plus 2 equals 5, and why Mary said 2 plus 2 equals 3. All I could say is that they are both wrong, and leave it at that.

Gilligan doesn’t argue that rule-based is specifically male and care-based specifically female, rather males tend to see more value in rules and females in care. Male dominance then leads to an uneven emphasis.

The basic question is whether there is always a right and a wrong. It’s true in arithmetic but morality might rely so much on specific context that there is no universal process. This is obviously untenable in legal systems, they would ground to a halt, but morality isn’t about convenience and efficiency. Whatever our own views, I think feminists have asked some interesting and valuable questions.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I agreed with your statement that the one who bears suffering with the greatest patience is the best.

I said that there is no success in the modern political context.

This is something we explored in some detail in the great Franco debate.

This is a Catholic forum, so I feel free to make certain assumptions regarding how terms will be understood. Naturally, I do not expect you to follow the assumption, coming as you do from an angry, atheist standpoint.

Alles klar?

And as I said in the Franco thread, quietly and meekly accepting any and all abuse is not a strength, or even a virtue. It is a weakness, and an invitation to be abused.

While I might pity a woman unwilling/too weak to defend herself or others, I could never respect such a creature.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am not sure about this statement.

.

If you are uncertain yourself, why do you presume to lecture me?

 

[Warrenton]

. Whatever our own views, I think feminists have asked some interesting and valuable questions.

I agree.

In many respects, I like the feminist attack on the culture.

In other aspects, I am perplexed by their insistence on controlling the same culture they persuasively attack.

However, I would not expect a view point that claims to speak for fully half of humanity to have consistency as a major attribute.

 

[Warrenton]

If you are uncertain yourself, why do you presume to lecture me?

I was not aware three or four lines constituted a lecture.

I actually thought your statement suggested some interesting areas of inquiry.

The medium of a forum lends itself to misinterpretation. You were not meant to read dripping sarcasm in the statement “i am not sure…” Rather, if we had been chatting in person, perhaps over the fraternal stein, (if your are a soror, my apologies) you would have seen me cast a thoughtful look into the amber liquid, stroke my chin, nod once or twice as I tried to follow the threads out from your statement, and say, “hmmmmm.”

In this particular thread, I don’t think we are really that far apart in thinking. But the way we organize our thoughts is different, which leads us down separate paths.

Do you think this rises to the level of having different philosophies?!?

 

[Warrenton]

While I might pity a woman unwilling/too weak to defend herself or others, I could never respect such a creature.

Now we get to the fun part!

I see the woman in her weakness and have the urge to exploit her.

Then the thought: her weakness dictates my urge.

Whose will is really influencing whom?

My will has been overborne by her weakness, whether I exploit or relent.

I am ashamed of my self, respecting her.

Five smooth stones, and the champion of the Hittites lies slain.