Is feminism anti-Catholic?

[fish90]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but does Catholic teaching on gender say that every gender is equal but has different roles?

My question is based upon the philosophy of feminism. Does it contradict Catholic morality and teaching? Why not use the Catholic veneration of Mary to be the role for how women are to be treated?

Best,
fish90

 

[St_Francis]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but does Catholic teaching on gender say that every gender is equal but has different roles?

Before God we are equal, but we are also different.

My question is based upon the philosophy of feminism. Does it contradict Catholic morality and teaching?

I would say yes, because feminists deny biological differences between men and women, and attribute any difference in the way they act or are treated as a result of oppression of women by men.

Why not use the Catholic veneration of Mary to be the role for how women are to be treated?

I would say that something similar to what you suggest here was done during the Middle Ages, resulting in chivalry (I think I have that right…)

I was involved with feminists way back in my college days, which was in the late 70s, early 80s. I read the original works of some feminists (some were just too dreary!) and they were very much based on anti-God philosophies and showed a great lack of understanding of human nature.

However, women were having problems before the advent of feminism. It is my understanding that a woman could not get credit on her own–she would have to get a man to co-sign with her. Divorce was automatically stigmatising. There are various reasons for this, such as women’s pay being less for the same job on the basis that the woman was more likely to quit if she got married or had children if already married.

Overall, I would say that while women did have some problems, feminism did not help. Women might not have *those *problems anymore, but they have a whole slew of new ones, as do men and society in general.

 

[Rascalking]

I’m a guy, but I think you raise a good point.

It bothers me about Catholic teaching when they talk about “roles”. You can be a Catholic Feminist-I believe strongly in women being in power, doing what they want, when they want.

However, I’m not pro-choice, and too many feminists (not all of themare of course) are. I DO think there is a glass ceiling that needs to be shattered, and I support alot of other feminist dogma.

Yes, you can be a catholic feminist. It’s quite easy.

 

[mfj]

There’s nice feminism and radical feminism.

I’m not going to be politically correct here but I believe in roles and yes I think the church teaches roles. But it shouldn’t seem like a bad thing.

Families are so fractured.
The proof is in the pudding. Society as a whole is suffering now and it will only get worse.
It was Gd’s idea to create family and for women to be more caring or nurturing.
My opinion is children need a parent at home at least during the formative years. Really we have institutionalized children. They will be put in Pre pre pre schools before long. The laws here in the US are reflecting a government take over of parental rights. And etc…

Women’s rights, a wonderful movement!!
Blurring all lines between the sexes is ludicrous and not in accordance with nature.

 

[lobster]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but does Catholic teaching on gender say that every gender is equal but has different roles?

My question is based upon the philosophy of feminism. Does it contradict Catholic morality and teaching? Why not use the Catholic veneration of Mary to be the role for how women are to be treated?

Best,
fish90

Feminism is chauvinism, which is a sign of the lack of humility. Christ was the perfect model of humility and it is Him we are to emulate.
I am not aware of any Catholic teachings that specifies every (both) genders are equal or that anyone is equal, only that all human beings have equal dignity as persons. The Blessed Virgin for example has no earthly equal, being the greatest of all created beings.

 

[Think_About_It]

I would say yes, because feminists deny biological differences between men and women, and attribute any difference in the way they act or are treated as a result of oppression of women by men.

They certainly don’t. Feminists suggest that many of the alleged differences between men and women are either very minute, or are socially constructed (which many of them are: you need only think back to a time where a woman’s role was thought exclusively to be in the home - there was much support for this from the religious community).

I read the original works of some feminists (some were just too dreary!) and they were very much based on anti-God philosophies

Feminism as an intellectual orientation is neither religious nor atheist. Some feminists highlight the importance of a diety, while others have suggested that a sexist diety, as is found in the Bible, is not a God worth worshiping.

Overall, I would say that while women did have some problems, feminism did not help. Women might not have *those *problems anymore, but they have a whole slew of new ones, as do men and society in general.

Women received the vote by feminist activism; women were able to participate in their country’s affairs; they could work outside of the domestic sphere; safeguards were put into place so that they were not denied privileges and oppertunities; safety nets were established to protect women from various assaults.

I’d rather not think of what problems were caused by the emancipation of women from subordination, just as I would rather not think of what problems were solved by the emancipation of Africans from slavery. Some very thoughtless people lost their power, but shall we blame the problems that came thereafter on freedom? I don’t think so.

children need a parent at home at least during the formative years. Really we have institutionalized children. They will be put in Pre pre pre schools before long.

Of course children need a parent home, whenever possible, but who says that must be a woman? A woman can work and a father can stay at home. There are no differences between men and women in their ability to nurture, either by nature or after having learned parenting methods. You talk as if being in a care facility for 8-10 hours a day is an awful thing. Studies have showed only positive effects from daycare facilities (at least reputable ones).

Blurring all lines between the sexes is ludicrous and not in accordance with nature.

The lines were blurry in nature. It’s society that constructed the division, for the most part. Men and women have different reproductive organs; men are, for the most part, stronger. There’s very little of anything else you can say to divide men and women. And finally, the sexes are not as easily distinguished biologically as you might want: Every intermediate biological structure between men and women exists in some person, somewhere. You can’t just place people in fixed gender identites with gender roles because it makes you feel comfortable.

Feminism is chauvinism

Support this claim.

 

[edwest2]

Radical Feminism as expressed by the National Organization for Women was divisive. There were and are legitimate problems in male-female relationships but NOW did not work to heal these problems. It worked to divide women from men by turning women into an eternal victim class. They would always be the potential victims of all men. This led to separate Women’s Studies at Universities, and to Women’s Literature. This helped to turn women into alien beings that could not be understood by men. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!”

This has played out over the last 40 years by creating false fear and false suspicion. Betty Friedan, NOW cofounder, called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” How can any sane person compare the family to a place where people are murdered? Gloria Steinem said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” She also published Ms. Magazine, which is the origin of that word.

The problem is that some women in the 1970s actually believed the ‘experts’ speaking for NOW, to the point where “No-Fault Divorce” likely got a few of them to use it as their justification in the 1980s.

That kind of feminism is not Biblical and it does not allow for healing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fish90]

Where can you find the Catholic teaching about women and men having separate roles yet being still equal?

Best,
fish90

 

[edwest2]

I’m a guy, but I think you raise a good point.

It bothers me about Catholic teaching when they talk about “roles”. You can be a Catholic Feminist-I believe strongly in women being in power, doing what they want, when they want.

However, I’m not pro-choice, and too many feminists (not all of themare of course) are. I DO think there is a glass ceiling that needs to be shattered, and I support alot of other feminist dogma.

Yes, you can be a catholic feminist. It’s quite easy.

There is no such thing as a “glass ceiling.” It is a divisive term created by radicals.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Where can you find the Catholic teaching about women and men having separate roles yet being still equal?

Best,
fish90

I suggest you read this:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Part 6 makes an explicit statement but I recommend reading the whole thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Radical feminism is the issue as it distorts and diminishes the feminine genius. It is not capable of bringing women true joy. It cannot bring women to total fulfillment since it is by definition selfish. That is not Catholic.

 

[Think_About_It]

There is no such thing as a “glass ceiling.” It is a divisive term created by radicals.
Peace,
Ed

“Only 4-5% of senior-level managers in major corporations are women, and these women tend to be concentrated in jobs traditionally associated with women, such as human relations or communications… despite the fact that many more women have the credentials to fulfil these managerial roles.” (Dingell & Maloney, 2002)

No, it’s a serious problem. Stereotypes dictate that women don’t enter into these high-end CEO positions and so it’s not very difficult to keep the trend going. You can accept the statistics for what they represent, or you can make blanket assertions about glass ceiling being a term to sow discordance. Read up a little before you start discrediting consciousness-raising facts of the work force. It’s people like you who hinder progress for women trying to obtain equality.

Radical feminism…is by definition selfish.

Support this claim.

 

[buffalo]

“Only 4-5% of senior-level managers in major corporations are women, and these women tend to be concentrated in jobs traditionally associated with women, such as human relations or communications… despite the fact that many more women have the credentials to fulfil these managerial roles.” (Dingell & Maloney, 2002)

No, it’s a serious problem. Stereotypes dictate that women don’t enter into these high-end CEO positions and so it’s not very difficult to keep the trend going. You can accept the statistics for what they represent, or you can make blanket assertions about glass ceiling being a term to sow discordance. Read up a little before you start discrediting consciousness-raising facts of the work force. It’s people like you who hinder progress for women trying to obtain equality.

Support this claim.

For starters, radical feminists support abortion rights and contraception. In other words the right to choose career over another human being. Selfishness at its best and anti feminine.

THE FEMINIST AGENDA – In their leaders’ own words:

1. “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified
   as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).
2. “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the
   women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom
   for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” (radial
   feminist leader Sheila Cronan).
3. “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to
   serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice
   that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”
   (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, “The Daily
   Illini,” April

25, 1981.

1. The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant
   members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,
   in “Women and the New Rage,” p.67.
2. “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
   families and communally raise them.” (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and
   assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate
   director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman).
3. “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally
   sanctioned method of control over women… We must work to destroy it.
   The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the
   liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women
   to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of
   history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go
   back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.” (from “The Declaration
   of Feminism,” November 1971).
4. “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the
   whole… patriarch!” (Gloria Steinhem, radical feminist leader, editor of
   ‘MS’ magazine).
5. In response to a question concerning China’s policy of compulsory
   abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, “I consider the
   Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world.”
   (Gary Bauer, “Abetting Coercion in China,” The Washington Times", October
   10, 1989).
6. “Let’s forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement,
   solace and inspiration from real women… Two thousand years of
   patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn
   women toward the feminist ‘salvation’ of this world.” (Annie Laurie
   Gaylor, “Feminist Salvation,” “The Humanist”, July/August 1988, p.37.
7. “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in
   human potential, not God.” (Gloria Steinhem, editor of ‘MS’ magazine.)

 

[edwest2]

“Only 4-5% of senior-level managers in major corporations are women, and these women tend to be concentrated in jobs traditionally associated with women, such as human relations or communications… despite the fact that many more women have the credentials to fulfil these managerial roles.” (Dingell & Maloney, 2002)

No, it’s a serious problem. Stereotypes dictate that women don’t enter into these high-end CEO positions and so it’s not very difficult to keep the trend going. You can accept the statistics for what they represent, or you can make blanket assertions about glass ceiling being a term to sow discordance. Read up a little before you start discrediting consciousness-raising facts of the work force. It’s people like you who hinder progress for women trying to obtain equality.

Support this claim.

“consciousness-raising”? I was there when wimmen were burning their bras. No consciousness raising occurred.

“people like you”? What kind of person am I?

Equality? Women wanting to be men? That’s the only equality I ever heard about from the radical feminists.

I have studied this issue since the day the anti-family groups in this country raised their shrill voices. Apparently, the CEOs, the people at the center of this claim for inequality, are not paying attention. Do you have any ideas about what should be done?

Peace,
Ed

 

[lobster]

“Only 4-5% of senior-level managers in major corporations are women, and these women tend to be concentrated in jobs traditionally associated with women, such as human relations or communications… despite the fact that many more women have the credentials to fulfil these managerial roles.” (Dingell & Maloney, 2002)

You have stated an effect. Now link it to a cause.

No, it’s a serious problem.

What is a serious problem? That a 2002 letter states that 4-5% of senior-level managers in “major” corporations are women? Case in point, I’m qualified and have turned down a high level management position (guess why?)

Stereotypes dictate that women don’t enter into these high-end CEO positions and so it’s not very difficult to keep the trend going. You can accept the statistics for what they represent, or you can make blanket assertions about glass ceiling being a term to sow discordance. Read up a little before you start discrediting consciousness-raising facts of the work force. It’s people like you who hinder progress for women trying to obtain equality.

Honestly, if men and women are equal, how would it even be possible that men have an edge over women in the business world? Do you honestly believe it is because men are physically stronger than women?

 

[MaryMagdala]

There is no such thing as a “glass ceiling.” It is a divisive term created by radicals.

Obviously, you are a male and know nothing about how women are treated in the workplace.

As a female who has worked in a lot of “traditionally” male jobs and seen first hand the treatment of women in the jobs, there is a glass ceiling and a lot of other “ceilings” or “walls” or whatever you want to call them.

I served in the Army in the 1980’s. The treatment of women was then,and as far as I know still is, different than the treatment of men … simply because they were women.

Example: I was the distinguished honor graduate of a medical course, missing only 3 points in 3 levels of the school. I had to pass the same physical tests and had to perform twice as hard to be treated “equally”. I was not given for a rank raise when I got my diploma, but when the next graduating class went through and a male got the distinguished graduate, he was IMMEDIATELY given a rank raise, no questions asked. The ONLY differences were our sex and our age. I was 28 and had 10 years experience, he was 20 and fresh out of high school … yet he got the raise and I didn’t.

I can go through many of my work experiences and point out these obvious prejudices and un-equal treatment.

Attitudes like yours are why women revert to feminism.

 

[edwest2]

Obviously, you are a male and know nothing about how women are treated in the workplace.

As a female who has worked in a lot of “traditionally” male jobs and seen first hand the treatment of women in the jobs, there is a glass ceiling and a lot of other “ceilings” or “walls” or whatever you want to call them.

I served in the Army in the 1980’s. The treatment of women was then,and as far as I know still is, different than the treatment of men … simply because they were women.

Example: I was the distinguished honor graduate of a medical course, missing only 3 points in 3 levels of the school. I had to pass the same physical tests and had to perform twice as hard to be treated “equally”. I was not given for a rank raise when I got my diploma, but when the next graduating class went through and a male got the distinguished graduate, he was IMMEDIATELY given a rank raise, no questions asked. The ONLY differences were our sex and our age. I was 28 and had 10 years experience, he was 20 and fresh out of high school … yet he got the raise and I didn’t.

I can go through many of my work experiences and point out these obvious prejudices and un-equal treatment.

Attitudes like yours are why women revert to feminism.

I worked in a large hospital in a major metropolitan area. I interacted with at least 100 women ranging from doctors to other specialists. We all treated each other with respect.

In your example, why didn’t you bring suit?

Is your only choice feminism or true justice?

Please describe my attitude. I watched as radical feminists, in concert with other radical, anti-family organizations, worked hard to destroy the family. One of the quickest routes to poverty in this country is to be an unwed mother with children. Why not tell all young women to simply avoid men?

Peace,
Ed

 

[fish90]

I suggest you read this:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Part 6 makes an explicit statement but I recommend reading the whole thing.

Peace,
Ed

These are very fascinating. (I have not read the entire Encyclical.

*Parenthood - even though it belongs to both - is realized much more fully in the woman, especially in the prenatal period. It is the woman who “pays” directly for this shared generation, which literally absorbs the energies of her body and soul. It is therefore necessary that the man be fully aware that in their shared parenthood he owes a special debt to the woman. No programme of “equal rights” between women and men is valid unless it takes this fact fully into account.

The man - even with all his sharing in parenthood - always remains “outside” the process of pregnancy and the baby’s birth; in many ways he has to learn his own “fatherhood” from the mother. One can say that this is part of the normal human dimension of parenthood, including the stages that follow the birth of the baby, especially the initial period. The child’s upbringing, taken as a whole, should include the contribution of both parents: the maternal and paternal contribution. In any event, the mother’s contribution is decisive in laying the foundation for a new human personality.

the link that exists between the woman’s motherhood and the Paschal Mystery

In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”.*

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Best,
fish90

 

[TheAtheist]

Doesn’t it all depend on what you mean by feminism?

Look, my viewpoint is a bit skewed because i’ve spent most of my life skulking around the ivory tower(s), but.

When i was much younger, “feminism” was defined as attempting to level an un-equitable playing field. ie: We can be like men. Or we can prove that we’re just as good as men.

This had a wide ranging effect of course. Everything from attempts to crack that proverbial glass ceiling to accusations that all the academic disciplines were completely skewed because men were running the show.

Now that i’m older though, there’s a new version or versions of feminism that emphasize a completely different set of issues. It seems less about “we can be as good as men” and more “respect the “jobs” that women do.” (Maybe Jobs is a bad term, special qualities perhaps?)

This too has wide ranging effects, from a greater sensitivity for the recognition of the problems associated with maternity in the workplace to demands of respect for strippers and sex workers. (Respect ~ Social sanctioning).

Off the top of my head, i think maybe 5 or 6 years back a colleague of mine told me a rather interesting “grudge match” that occurred at Wesley, when the “old Feminists” went to war with the “new Feminists” after they found out that “Pole-dancing 101” was offered as an elective for students. Accusations of “the other side” being too radical or subversive were flying around.

 

[MaryMagdala]

I worked in a large hospital in a major metropolitan area. I interacted with at least 100 women ranging from doctors to other specialists. We all treated each other with respect.

You were extremely lucky then. God Bless you. I worked in a medium sized metropolitan military hospital and the males were typically overbearing, made sexually abusive type comments on a daily/hourly basis, fondled the females at every opportunity, tried to get the females removed from their male predominent offices, etc. When one E7 tried to have me removed, I produced a list of all the comments, actions, and attitudes, with dates, and places, and all that was done was I was REMOVED (to another clinic) but NOTHING was done to him.

In your example, why didn’t you bring suit?

Because in the Army you are not ALLOWED to bring suit, and it would have just made it worse, as any woman in the military can tell you.

Is your only choice feminism or true justice?

I didn’t choose feminism. however, I have fought with every bone in my body against the power of the male over my life. My particular experience has not been pleasant. There are some women who have had no problems, but I would dare say they are the exception, not the rule, just as your good experience in the Large hospital was the exception not the rule.

True justice will only come in the next world, it doesn’t exist in this world.
Money BUYS most “justice” on earth.

Please describe my attitude. I watched as radical feminists, in concert with other radical, anti-family organizations, worked hard to destroy the family.

Your attitude speaks for itself, I have no need to describe it. However, I will describe it as patronizing and inflammatory.

One of the quickest routes to poverty in this country is to be an unwed mother with children.

And, pray tell, who LEFT that woman unwed and pregnant?

Why not tell all young women to simply avoid men?

I would if they would listen.