Is feminism fundamentally evil?

[BlindSheep]

I would just like to get your thoughts on this. Is feminism (as it is today, not women’s sufferage of 100 years ago) a fundamentally wrong belief system? Or is it the necessary antidote to oppression of women? Does it encourage women to see oppression that is not there, or to feel justified in mistreating men and children? What parts of the historical women’s movement do you think were good, and which bad? I’m just curious to see what perspectives are represented here.

 

[Flopfoot]

Not entirely sure on the defn of feminism anymore…

This is my opn.
Equal pay for equal work = good
Women not treated like property = good
Traditional women’s roles being condemned (its as if sahm’s aren’t valued any more) = bad
Trying to make women exactly like men (eg, abortion ‘frees’ them from having to give birth) = very bad

What feminism ideally should have done is only changed the bad things. It would have been nice if feminism had helped women to not always be so conscious about their image (some women seem to think they have a responsibility to look sexy to men) so that they wouldn’t feel like they had to wear uncomfortable shoes, immodest dress etc. unless they really wanted to. It would have been good if feminism had helped men to respect and appreciate women more, instead it seems that the opposite has happened. Gone are the days when women were generally thought of as good and virtuous and pure. See the problem is that feminism changed things like that (the idea that all women should be virtuous) which is something that they should have left just as it was!

Like all things in this world (except the CC), feminism has its faults and its bad side… but it would have been nice if the bad side had been way overshadowed by the good side. In actual fact the bad side (things like abortion, “raunch culture” etc) are all too visible.

 

[LilyM]

Women being encouraged to have careers outside the home = good

Women being made to feel career should define them like it does men = bad (ties in with what flopfoot was saying about sahms)

Rise of the ‘househusband’ (we’re taking over the good jobs guys, get used to it ) = good for all concerned, men should feel it’s OK to be devoted to home and kids

MEN feeling career should define them (feeling unneeded except as a breadwinner - possibly due to the manbashing aspects of feminism) and ignoring their families as a result = bad

Fundamentally evil? don’t think so, and I don’t think you’d find very many people of either gender who’d say it is

 

[jman507]

As aways it comes down to how you define it. The fundamentally evil elements are fundamentally evil.

 

[jman507]

The one thing that kinda worries me, is with all this divorce with the addition of a lot of men who lose their care of education, your going to get a lot of men with out any bond to make them responsible nor any real need, your going to end up with a dangerous demographic. What do you think your going to end up with when you have a bunch of single men with no hope of getting a decent job?

 

[Elisabeth]

Well the first challenge is to define feminism. The word no longer has any easily captured meaning. It is used for everything from political movement trying to guarantee basic political and civil rights to women throughout the world to goddess worshippers to gender feminists who truly abhor both true masculinity and true femininity.

The original motivations for the feminist movement were not necessarily bad. Women should have a right to all the same civil rights men have; they have voices and perspectives that are needed in the public square. In fact John Paul II was quite clear that when women’s voices are eliminated from the public sphere not only are the women discriminated against but the whole society is impoverished.

However, much of modern feminism has gone well beyond these original goals and embraces concepts that are not only untrue but fundamentally damaging. I think the biggest and most insidious aspect is the idea that gender is a) a social construct separate from a biological reality and b) insignificant. God created us male and female in his image. Our sex is fundamental to our being and will never change; I am a woman and that fundamental aspect of my being will be true whether I am in the Church Suffering, the Church Militant or the Church Triumphant. Feminism portends to say that my sex is insignificant; but what it really teaches is that my femininity is inferior. Even as young girls we are taught that to be successful we must imitate/embrace the masculine and deny the feminine.

It is not only women who have been damaged in this process. Just as these groups are telling women to deny their feminine selves, it is telling both women and men that to be truly masculine is to be damaged and dangerous. Only the imitation masculinity they preach has value in this worldview. Women are taught that they must be completely self-reliant (emotionally as well as financially) and that men are not to be trusted. Men are taught that women are simply sexual vessels and that women who rely on men for support of any type are dangerous. Men are also taught that their protective natures are misogynistic. This forces both men and women into behaviors and expectations that are fundamentally contrary to their natures.

 

[Eileen_T]

Radical feminism has its roots in Marxism. Karl Marx viewed women as effective agitators to overthrow capitalism. As he admitted in a 1868 letter, “major social transformations are impossible without ferment among the women.”

We have covered this as part of the issue “Abortion as a Feminist Issue” on our website, about halfway down the page. life.org.nz/abortionkeyissuesfeministagenda.htm

Just watch out for the counter-revolution, and it will probably be Christian women who start that one.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

The largest negative fruit of the feminist movement that I can see is the lack of chastity. Instead of protecting their virginity, women are encourage to express their sexuality. Thus, a rise in STDs, cervical cancer, infertility, abortion, out of wedlock pregnancy, pornography, divorce. And, all the wounded souls and broken hearts.

Men seem to objectify women more than in the pre-modern feminist era. Isn’t that weird? Wasn’t it a goal of the feminist movement to deobjectify women?

I think a Christian reformation of the feminist movement will reclaim woman’s dignity as expressed in chastity.

 

[1ke]

BlindSheep:

Is feminism (as it is today, not women’s sufferage of 100 years ago) a fundamentally wrong belief system?

Yes

BlindSheep:

Or is it the necessary antidote to oppression of women?

No.

BlindSheep:

Does it encourage women to see oppression that is not there, or to feel justified in mistreating men and children?

Yes

BlindSheep:

What parts of the historical women’s movement do you think were good, and which bad?

“Feminism” has nothing to do with the “historical” women’s movement. The “feminist” movement seeks to eliminate all differences between sexes, and those women seeking voting rights were not seeking do do so.

I would highly recommend Phyllis Schlafly’s book, Feminist Fantasies, on this very subject.

 

[Black_Jaque]

I guess I could say yes it is fundamentally screwed up, when I boil it down.

Feminism was a bad response to a bad problem.

The problem was male chauvinism, in which men were not taking women’s best interests to heart. So men were not striving for the betterment of women. God designed men precisely to work for the betterment of women.

The so-called solution, feminism, was for women to look out for women’s best interest. And that is essentially what it is, women campaigning for women.

So now we have female chauvinism. In which women think of men as second class citizens. Men’s thoughts on life and abortion are disregarded because men are unqualified. The culture is saturated with advice for how men should treat their wives, while advice to women on how to treat men is generally laughed at like a good joke.

 

[JimG]

JMJ Theresa:

The largest negative fruit of the feminist movement that I can see is the lack of chastity. Instead of protecting their virginity, women are encourage to express their sexuality. Thus, a rise in STDs, cervical cancer, infertility, abortion, out of wedlock pregnancy, pornography, divorce. And, all the wounded souls and broken hearts.

Men seem to objectify women more than in the pre-modern feminist era. Isn’t that weird? Wasn’t it a goal of the feminist movement to deobjectify women?

I think a Christian reformation of the feminist movement will reclaim woman’s dignity as expressed in chastity.

I think you’ve summed it up perfectly. The combination of the birth control pill, widespread availability of contraceptives, the sexual revolution, and the rise of feminist ideology, all came together to increasingly objectify women, by freeing men of responsibility.

 

[Black_Jaque]

…by freeing men of responsibility.

Which is indirectly, my point. A male chauvenist is basically a man who is not living up to responsibilities for the well being of his wife. He is more interested in subjugating her to serving him.

So the problem was women were not being taken care of by men. Feminism sought to solve the problem by having women take care of women, or women take care of themselves. Thus they became “Fish without a bicycle.”

Who is looking after women’s well being? The women are, they don’t need men to look after their well being. Therefore men are no longer responsible. Ta-dah!

If male chauvinists were challenged instead to love their wives, then perhaps things would have progressed differently. And to some extent, the feminist movement did challenge men to love their wives - THANKS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!

It was likely due to the feminist movement that the Church needed to respond. And out of that response came John Paul II’s writings. In a nutshell the Church is telling men, “you better ramp up your efforts in loving your wife, or else you’ve got a world of feminism to look forward to.”