Positive results of feminism ?

[edwest2]

What social justice problems were solved by feminism?. The feminism I’m referring to is as described in the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan and the words and actions of Gloria Steinem and the National Organization of Women.

It appears that the only accomplishment was creating suspicion, fear and division between men and women. Even countries, when they disagree, need to establish lines of communication and understanding, seek common ground, build trust and identify, clearly, the problems they have and work toward a solution.

Feminism, in my view, was a social engineering project designed to destroy families and male-female relationships in general. Men were all suspects and guilty until they kow-towed to the whims of the middle-man, in this case, NOW.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SoCalRC]

Perhaps the question would better be expressed as ‘why did Jesus challenge traditional gender roles?’

In the Gospels we have the phrase “Daughter of Abraham” uttered for seemingly the first time. We also have a woman being applauded for sitting at Jesus’ feet like a male pupil and another woman chastized for assuming a traditional gender role instead.

Remember, Jesus lived in a society where simply talking to a woman outside of one’s immediate family was a serious social taboo - a lot like, say, public nudity would still be today. Yet he not only talks to women, but even touches them. And he allows himself to be touched and ministered to by sinful women in front of others.

Biblical scholars generally agree that Jesus allowed women to assume the role of benefactor to his ministry while men where encouraged to give up all earthly posessions. From St. Paul’s own words we know that he did not use a patriarchal system in his own ministry to the gentiles.

Since we know that Jesus was without sin, resisted evil with every fiber of his being, and sacrificed himself for all of humanity, examining his actions might be a better frame of reference for judging something like modern feminism than the fearfullness it instills in some. Much like the Church teaching on the inalienable rights of the “human person” is a better context to examine Civil Rights than the fear and racial tensions that have accompanied it.

 

[Steve40]

What social justice problems were solved by feminism?. The feminism I’m referring to is as described in the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan and the words and actions of Gloria Steinem and the National Organization of Women.

It appears that the only accomplishment was creating suspicion, fear and division between men and women. Even countries, when they disagree, need to establish lines of communication and understanding, seek common ground, build trust and identify, clearly, the problems they have and work toward a solution.

Feminism, in my view, was a social engineering project designed to destroy families and male-female relationships in general. Men were all suspects and guilty until they kow-towed to the whims of the middle-man, in this case, NOW.

God bless,
Ed

Not only that but they also killed a lot of kids with it. On a more personal note, for a little while my wife made more money then I did before she decided to be a full time mom. But the draw back is that she has difficulty with being submissive. I just tell her that’s not my problem, that’s something she owes to God. Then she pulls out the Catechism and says see they say it’s a partnership. So I say just because it’s a partnership it doesn’t mean you don’t have to be submissive. But, like I said that’s her problem which is easy compared to mine. I have to love her as Christ loves the Church. That’s seems impossible, at least for me alone.

 

[SoCalRC]

Not only that but they also killed a lot of kids with it.

What an odd thought. Abortion predates western feminism movements by quite a bit (millenia). Even after abortion laws began to appear in the 19th century, abortificants and abortion procedures were still widely advertised in newspapers all over western europe and the united states.

But even if we take a wild leap and connect feminism to abortion, it is hard to understand the use of “they”. The last time I checked, human reproduction required both genders.

But the draw back is that she has difficulty with being submissive. I just tell her that’s not my problem, that’s something she owes to God. Then she pulls out the Catechism and says see they say it’s a partnership. So I say just because it’s a partnership it doesn’t mean you don’t have to be submissive.

Again, I’m confused. In the Gospels, Jesus rejects submissive roles. Look at ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matt 4:38-42), also reiterated in Luke’s description of the Sermon on the Plain. The left hand is unclean, so the only way to strike someone on the right cheek is to use a backhanded blow - which was routinely used to assert dominance.

In Greek the word normally translated for “resist” is used in the Old Testament as a technical term for warfare. So Jesus does not appear to support returning violence for violence, but neither does he seem to be endorsing letting evil go unchallenged. If some one asserts dominance over you with ritual violence, do not return violence, but force them to either make themselves unclean by using their left hand, or strike you open handed like an equal.

It is hard to argue that Jesus was excluding women from these teachings. When a woman praises Mary for her traditional maternal role, Jesus admonished her and instructed her to focus on being a fellow child of God.

Since Jesus and St. Paul both used (seeming) hyperbole to attach the traditional patriarchal family structure in their ministries, it is hard to understand why you are so certain that a submissive caste system is an integral part of Catholicism, despite its absense from the Catechism.

 

[edwest2]

Patriarchal? Can we agree that Jesus was a man and that God the Father is a man? I am not arguing for any sort of power struggle here. I am not suggesting that women should be submissive. The Bible plainly teaches that wives should love their husbands and husbands should love their wives.

This is one negative message of the feminism I’m referring to: unless women can be men there can be no equality, which is false and divisive.

As Catholics, can we understand that women were never meant to be used by anyone? That the matter of human dignity applies to everyone, regardless of their role? Man, woman, child? And can we agree that any attempt to portray the differences between men and women and turn it into some sort of dysfunctional power struggle is wrong?

And where is true love in all of this? True respect, true caring, true sacrifice for each other?

Can we also agree that not every man was lying through his teeth when he told the special woman in his life that he loved her? And would do what true love is?

God bless,
Ed

 

[strngrnrth]

Then there were Old Testament women: Deborah, a prophet,a warrior, a general,a leader of her country, a judge, a poet and singer who performed in public a ballad celebrating her own victory and God’s glory – all for God; Rahab, a prostitute who quickly made her own judgement about the side she should take in battle, assuming the role of an intelligence operative, all for God, and saved her family by doing so; a woman who set out to see a prophet of God about bringing her deceased son back to life, though her husband advised against it, and succeeded in her mission – all for God. How many Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and nature/ancestor worshippers, would condemn any woman who tried such things now? Many, I believe.
Feminism is just belief in women. No two people interpret that belief the same way. Friedan and Steinem don’t always even see eye to eye. My version of feminism is that I am a person and can do good things and have the same amount of claim on credit and reward for my work and attention to my needs as a man has.

 

[edwest2]

So I was right, women are over here and men are over there or as far away as possible. This is a falsehood and divisive.

Sad.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Newbie2]

So I was right, women are over here and men are over there or as far away as possible. This is a falsehood and divisive.

Sad.

God bless,
Ed

Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that all of feminism’s goals/accomplishments are/have been bad. Agreed that militant feminism doesn’t have a good track record, but one of the goals of more moderate feminsim is to acknowledge and reward more equally that has been the case equal work between women and men.

Another has been to support women in positions of authority in the workplace and in government.

I guess there’s different degrees of feminism, with different respective goals.

 

[ricmat]

Well Ed, no one has answered the first sentence of your opening post. I don’t expect any good answers.

 

[edwest2]

What? Could you be a bit more specific? Do we truly have, today, equal pay for equal work?

What would your son or daughter or local priest say if you told them “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”? Anyone?

God bless,
Ed

 

[mpb74]

God is not a man. God is a spiritual being. God has no gender as humanity understands gender. God is refered to in speech as a man because he spoke of HIMself as Father to impart his role in a way humanity could understand at the time he spoke to our biblical ancestors. God is also nurturing and attentive to our small wounds, like an earthly mother is. We only have gender based pronouns to use while we should more accuratelyy use HIS proper name, God. Men and women are just different sides of the same face, God’s beautiful creation. Jesus incarnated as a man. He is also God, a spiritual being without a gender.

Men and women are different. Men and women are equal. I have unshakable faith that in God’s eyes we are equal parts of his plan. I know God loves us equally. To think we should not all have the same rights and responsibilities in this world is ludicrous to me. Love one another as I haved loved you. Not love each other based on physical appearances and gender based characteristics.

Men and women, in a general sense, have different strengths and characteristics that help them fill SOME of the differing roles within a family and in society. We should all be well aware of them early in life. Some people are called by nature and circumstance to fill roles more traditionally occupied by the other gender. They play to their individual strengths and do what they are called to do. This is honorable. Think a father or mother as the only breadwinner and the only nurturer.

Feminism, as a movement in America, has accomplished much, if not all it’s goals. The right to vote, access to higher education in concrete fields other than sewing, knitting, and babymaking. Equal pay is a fact when all factors are taken into consideration. (Though surveys by the purveyors of resentment studies would have you believe otherwise)

An unfortunate result of a melding of our modern culture, hedonism, MILITANT feminism, and the gay pride agenda has left many women wanting to be men, and many men wanting to be women. This is not a good trend, but will, as all things pass. As if they know better than God what they are. Many try to hide their gender as if in shame. God created natural law, not Patricia Ireland.

The fact that todays feminism is so intrinsically linked to abortion, many, including me, turn a deaf ear to anything true or useful that they may say, because we don’t listen to the opinions of murderers. That is a good thing.

My wife works. She provides a tremendous service to humanity. She is well paid , by my middle class standards, for the work she does. It does detract from our family life at times, but it is an acceptable loss, as we must all sacrifice our own time and effort to do good works.

I can only hope previous posters were typing tongue in cheek when speaking of thier wives. I would never speak of my wife in that manner, ever, unless it were obviously a joke. And then so, very rarely. Love is a choice, not an emotion generated in the depths of our loins. If we love truly, it is unconditional. If I find it hard to love someone then I never loved them in the first place. Marriage is a partnership based on love, mutual respect, and courtesy. I often am quite willing to go along with my loves point of view over mine as she is often nearer to a correct decision than I. That goes both ways. It seems as though some would have me bash her over the head with a club and inflict my decision on her and my children.

No wonder some are some so misled about the faith, they hear what we say.

I am not an anthropologist, philosopher, or theologist though I like to play one online. If my views conflict with the Church’s view please enlightenen me.

This come’s from an old fashioned macho man to whom even somethings are obvious. Dan

 

[edwest2]

Your WARNING negated your entire post.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SoCalRC]

Patriarchal? Can we agree that Jesus was a man and that God the Father is a man?

We can agree that Jesus was a male, but he made it clear that his earthly ministry was for everyone. He crossed most the artificial lines created by his culture (gender, disabled, diseased, even ostracized sinners).

To view God solely in the context of “the father” is a disservice to God and poor reading of Holy Scripture. God fills all the roles we can name and assign and roles beyond our comprehension.

This is one negative message of the feminism I’m referring to: unless women can be men there can be no equality, which is false and divisive.

At Mass each week we all announce, together, that we are not worthy. If we are all sincere, all in agreement that not one of us is truly worthy, but all are welcome at God’s table, we have perfect social justice. We have, in fact, renounced all distinctions and accepted the gift we just asked for, unity and peace. A miracle, on the spot, week after week, all over the country, all over the world.

My son is disabled and I see him excluded and ostracized in virtually every aspect of daily life. But I have been to Mass with him all over the country and it is always the same. People around us make a special effort to include him. They will take an extra moment, or a few more steps to exchange the sign of peace.

We achieve this moment of unity in part because our differences are moot. None of us is, in fact, worthy. We are all sinners, none of us is Christ. This lesson seems to be repeated in Jesus’ earthly ministry. He ignores are human boundaries, living truly outside the social norms of his time. He repeatedly warns us about self rightousness and making relative judgements between ourselves and others.

In this context, your concern seems to be wholly a man made construct. The path to salvation is the same for everyone. Jesus gave the same answer, for all, every time the subject was raised. We are all supposed to be children of God. Our lives are to be dedicated wholly to love of God and our neighbors and service to others.

The whole concept of a woman ‘being a man’ is presumably based on artificial boundaries created in your mind. My attitude is, why care? Obviously, lots of men are insecure - why else would I get 10,000 spam messages each day asking me if I want bigger equipment? But why should I care how a person feels they can best spend the Gift of Life and the unique combination of abilities given to them by God?

To worry about who is, say, in a given job or role is an obsession with one’s stature or place in the world. And Jesus tells us to forsake all that. Think of the seating suggestion we heard recently. To paraphrase, if you take a position of authority based on your gender, and then find that you must change your place, you are embarrassed and threatened. On the other hand, if you take the lowest position, any elevations is recognition and reward…

As for the rest, I just don’t follow you. I’d have to say that women on juries was a positive step, since it lets the female accused have a trial by a jury of her peers - something we aspired to give in our justice system. Likewise, I would have to say that the right to vote was a good thing. Having all roles in society represented makes for a better democracy.

Frankly, although I am aware of the Pope’s warning, I don’t even find more extreme feminism a wholly bad thing. Pushing gender roles to extremes at least brings the fears out for discussion. Perhaps if more men could confront their fears I could be spared some of those 10,000 spam messages offering me special supplements…

 

[Steve40]

What an odd thought. Abortion predates western feminism movements by quite a bit (millenia). Even after abortion laws began to appear in the 19th century, abortificants and abortion procedures were still widely advertised in newspapers all over western europe and the united states.

But even if we take a wild leap and connect feminism to abortion, it is hard to understand the use of “they”. The last time I checked, human reproduction required both genders.

\QUOTE]

They have perfected the killing with the modern feminist movement. They are better at it now than they were before, if better is the right word to use. Maybe I should have defined “they”. They are the feminists who want to kill. But, not all feminists want to kill, just a lot of them.
SoCalRC;2831316:

Again, I’m confused. In the Gospels, Jesus rejects submissive roles. Look at ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matt 4:38-42), also reiterated in Luke’s description of the Sermon on the Plain. The left hand is unclean, so the only way to strike someone on the right cheek is to use a backhanded blow - which was routinely used to assert dominance.

In Greek the word normally translated for “resist” is used in the Old Testament as a technical term for warfare. So Jesus does not appear to support returning violence for violence, but neither does he seem to be endorsing letting evil go unchallenged. If some one asserts dominance over you with ritual violence, do not return violence, but force them to either make themselves unclean by using their left hand, or strike you open handed like an equal.

It is hard to argue that Jesus was excluding women from these teachings. When a woman praises Mary for her traditional maternal role, Jesus admonished her and instructed her to focus on being a fellow child of God.

Since Jesus and St. Paul both used (seeming) hyperbole to attach the traditional patriarchal family structure in their ministries, it is hard to understand why you are so certain that a submissive caste system is an integral part of Catholicism, despite its absense from the Catechism.

Mary was submissive and she is a good example to follow for all of us. God designed a hierarchy and submissiveness is a good part of it. Both leadership servitude and submissiveness of those being lead are good qualities against our pride.

I think it was a mistake to leave an explaination of wives be submissive to you husbands out of the 1994 Catechism. We need that explaination today more than ever. Pope Pius XI in Costi Canubi gave a good explaination that could have been drawn from and put into the Catechism. It is the Church’s teaching on Christian Marriage.

 

[dafalax]

Feminism as defined by Betty Friedan is a crock and is incompatible with Christianity. Authentic femininity should be embraced. The problem with the feminist movement is that it taught women that in order to show that we are worth as much as men, we must act like men. That’s false. We’re already worth as much in the eyes of God, and our roles as mothers, wives, and daughters are just as important, albeit different, than the roles of men. All going out into the workforce does is diminish the role of motherhood and hurt children. Children are no longer thought of as important enough to be a full time job, unless it’s for a daycare worker being paid to do it.
I am not saying that men never did anything to warrant a negative reaction in women. Certainly many societies treated women as property and undervalued our God-given dignity. However, the approach to remedy these attitudes was just as bad and has ultimately proven more destructive. I have trouble believing that men treated women as badly as they do today when they thought of them as simple like children. Now it’s our fault if we get pregnant and a man is considered responsible if he offers to pay for the abortion instead of marry a woman to protect her reputation.
I think people are uncomfortable with saying women should be submissive and that is unfortunate. We are all called to be submissive to God. Submission is a good thing, when it’s to the right thing. A family can only have one head. A woman is called to be the heart. A body cannot live without either organ or with two of one and none of the other. Saint Paul tells men to love their wives because men sort of need to be trained into showing loving gestures and not taking us for granted. He tells women to submit to your husbands because our defect as women is a tendency toward shrewish disrespect of our beloved’s inherent dignity as a man. Then he tells us that our bodies are not our own, that a man’s is his wife’s and vice versa. There is to be mutual self-giving, obviously in things physical, but also in other areas. I think when it boils down to important decisions that a man should be given final say as the head. If you don’t trust him to make important decisions, why did you marry him?
Incidentally, God revealed Himself as Father through Jesus because he wants us to have a loving familial relationship with Him, but also because He wants the dignity and authority of the role of Father respected. Feminism from Betty Friedan does nothing to explain a healthy relationship with man as father or husband or son. It teaches of man as oppressor.
With all due respect, SoCal, your arguments seems as fruity as the Napa Valley. There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles, and if they were meant to be the same, God would have stopped with Adam. There’s something unique about woman, and she is from God, so it is good. Let’s focus on the uniqueness of man and woman instead of the false compassion of androgyny.

 

[catharina]

Patriarchal? Can we agree that Jesus was a man and that God the Father is a man? I am not arguing for any sort of power struggle here. I am not suggesting that women should be submissive. The Bible plainly teaches that wives should love their husbands and husbands should love their wives.

This is one negative message of the feminism I’m referring to: unless women can be men there can be no equality, which is false and divisive.

As Catholics, can we understand that women were never meant to be used by anyone? That the matter of human dignity applies to everyone, regardless of their role? Man, woman, child? And can we agree that any attempt to portray the differences between men and women and turn it into some sort of dysfunctional power struggle is wrong?

And where is true love in all of this? True respect, true caring, true sacrifice for each other?

Can we also agree that not every man was lying through his teeth when he told the special woman in his life that he loved her? And would do what true love is?

God bless,
Ed

Surely you misspoke and you wish to concede as much. There is NO theology that describes God the Father as “a man.”

As for feminism, radical feminism has no viable place among us since it negates the worth of men. However, has feminism presented/created some “good” for women? Yes if one considers equal pay and benfits for work done as a good. Has it also brought along some great evil? Yes, since abortion rights was one of its lynchpins and rampant abortion is what we have now.

 

[Newbie2]

What? Could you be a bit more specific? Do we truly have, today, equal pay for equal work?

What would your son or daughter or local priest say if you told them “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”? Anyone?

God bless,
Ed

No, we don’t yet have across-the-board equal pay for equal work, but as I said, that is one of the goals of (moderate) feminism that, from a social justice standpoint, is worthy of support.

My son, and my priest, would look at me and say, "???".

I miss your point, there, ed.

 

[SoCalRC]

They have perfected the killing with the modern feminist movement. They are better at it now than they were before, if better is the right word to use. Maybe I should have defined “they”. They are the feminists who want to kill. But, not all feminists want to kill, just a lot of them.

Again, what an odd thought. For the first millenia infanticide was the major problem confronted by the Church as it spread to gentiles. This was virtually always performed by fathers on new borns. Look at this quote from Pope Stephen V in the 9th century:

“If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old.” -Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz

I see this quoted quite a bit on pro-life web sites as evidence that the Church has always opposed abortion, but when you read everything in context it is perhaps even more disturbing. The Pope appears to be really saying, ‘look, our teachings are that it is murder when the baby is still in the womb, of course you cannot let the fathers in your flock continue to bury their unwanted new born children alive…’

Yes, a number of feminists consider what they call “reproductive rights” important, but there is nothing to suggest that they significantly drive actual numbers. Remember, they are the most likely to use birth control. On the flip side, about 60% of all abortions in the US are procurred by woman near or below the poverty level. Over half of them already have children. Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately over represented, which means that Christians and Catholics are disproportionately over represented.

Mary was submissive and she is a good example to follow for all of us. God designed a hierarchy and submissiveness is a good part of it. Both leadership servitude and submissiveness of those being lead are good qualities against our pride.

Mary was submissive to God, but to man? Not hardly. Read her song in the Gospel. Try reading anything about Latin American biblical study, a short work like THE GOSPEL THROUGH THIRD WORLD EYES, or something like THE BIBLE OF THE OPRESSED. Both the Marys who are prominent in the Gospels are viewed, quite rightfully I think, as powerful and forceful children of God.

I am also at a loss as to what hierarchy you think God designed. In Christianity, woman were priests for centuries, at least in Pauline Christianity. Our current male dominated heirarchy really dates from feudalism. An all male clergy was really the only practical way for the Church to maintain control of its massive land assets.

I think it was a mistake to leave an explaination of wives be submissive to you husbands out of the 1994 Catechism. We need that explaination today more than ever. Pope Pius XI in Costi Canubi gave a good explaination that could have been drawn from and put into the Catechism. It is the Church’s teaching on Christian Marriage.

Well, that is the struggle of Roman Catholicism. You either accept you are part of an apostolic Church with the Gift of Authority, or you do not. It is easy to follow teachings we already understand and support. Harder when they challenge our immediate wishes.

I find it odd that your would cite Pope Pius XI. First of all, we are talking about a 20th century Pope. Most assuredly, we had Christian marriage for the 19 centuries prior. Second, he was a highly progressive Pope. He rejected the prior Church position on a theocratic monarcy as the ideal form of government, decried both socialism and unrestrained capitalism, and took an open stance against anti-semitism. He is probably best known for “Quadragesimo Anno”. But “Costi Canubi” is not as conservative as it might seem. It is best known for reaffirming Church objections to birth control, but his view on marital roles was actually considered too liberal by many at the time. Personally, I think that his utter condemantion of eugenics is the most noteworthy aspect of the document.

Theological opinion was mixed, his was not. He immediately saw the eugenics movement, which was really based in the US, as a grave evil. For most of the world it took the Nazi application during the holocaust for the lesson to sink in.

Something I find a little disturbing is that you insist on putting your disagreemeint with your wife in the context of heresy. You don’t appear to say, ‘this is how I want you to behave’. You insist on putting your position as an issue of faith. But, as you have already acknowledged here, that argument itself is based on you rejecting the Church’s Gift of Authority and inserting your own opinion in place of the magisterium. If you cannot, yourself, submit to the teachings of the Church, why would you expect her to submit to you?

 

[He_Man]

Surely you misspoke and you wish to concede as much. There is NO theology that describes God the Father as “a man.”

As for feminism, radical feminism has no viable place among us since it negates the worth of men. However, has feminism presented/created some “good” for women? Yes if one considers equal pay and benfits for work done as a good. Has it also brought along some great evil? Yes, since abortion rights was one of its lynchpins and rampant abortion is what we have now.

The problem is that one could argue that Nazi party did a lot of good too. Germany’s industrial thrived under their reign. But this doesn’t negate the horror they did, and as such, are condenmed, and rightly so.

All the accomplishments of the feminist movement are buried under the support of abortion, homosexual promotion, and other moral issues.

 

[fix]

I am also at a loss as to what hierarchy you think God designed. In Christianity, woman were priests for centuries, at least in Pauline Christianity. Our current male dominated heirarchy really dates from feudalism. An all male clergy was really the only practical way for the Church to maintain control of its massive land assets.

Really?