Positive results of feminism ?

[Sarah245]

Not in the least. I am simply passing on what you would learn in a Catholic High School, that the role of woman has changed.

We have an apostolic Church with the gift of authority, this allows us to see our faith in the proper context for every age and continue to grow in our understanding of our Lord’s teachings.

What you would learn in a Catholic High School is not always in line with Church teaching, sometimes not at all. The role of women has changed in the culture but our intrinsic identity as men and women in the light of Christ’s redemption has not changed. You should try reading St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject. The world and cultures change, the Church does not.

 

[SoCalRC]

More dodging. I started by clearly identifying the subjects involved. Now I’m getting the what is your definition of is? Please, no more dodging.

OK - we can’t answer your question as asked because we strive to be Catholic. You want us to join you in declaring other children of God wholly evil and celebrate false superiority.

Declaring other humans as evil and dedicating discussion to one’s moral superiority over them is something Jesus addressed in his earthly ministry. For an example, see all of Luke 18.

For an example of how we are supposed to act towards other humans in a quest for salvation see Luke 10.

The problem with getting what you want isn’t a definition of feminism, it is an obligation to Christ.

 

[dessert]

Well, Ed here is a statement I heard at church and you would be surprised who said it and I was shocked but I did leave and go to another parish after that.

Tell me what you think of it.

There was a story about a man who had a wife and they got along very well and he made lots of money and had become a CEO of a company and were very well off. So they went to their 40th class reunion one summer and saw lots of people there. and they met a fellow manfriend of them both, that had become a sales man and was not very well and had become a poor and losing man in lots of financial trouble.
The man said to his wife, now what if you had married him look where you would be now.
And she turned to him and said if I had married him he would be the CEO and you would be the salesman.

About half the people in church chuckeled at that, but I didn’t because I had never heard such a biased statement or joke like that before.
D.

 

[ricmat]

OK - we can’t answer your question as asked because we strive to be Catholic. You want us to join you in declaring other children of God wholly evil and celebrate false superiority.

Declaring other humans as evil and dedicating discussion to one’s moral superiority over them is something Jesus addressed in his earthly ministry. For an example, see all of Luke 18.

For an example of how we are supposed to act towards other humans in a quest for salvation see Luke 10.

The problem with getting what you want isn’t a definition of feminism, it is an obligation to Christ.

I thought Ed’s question in post #1 was valid.

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.

You tried to hijack the thread in post #2 - rephrasing Ed’s question -
Perhaps the question would better be expressed as ‘why did Jesus challenge traditional gender roles?’

SoCalRC - you come across as a smarmy know-it-all (on subjects you choose at least), and that you are here to lecture the ignorant savages. Your many “What an odd thought…” comments not-so-subtly declare your own superiority on these matters. How odd that you would accuse others of false superiority.

Of course, written communications lack much in terms of body language, voice tones, etc. So perhaps I’m wrong. In person you may be totally different. If that is the case, then I apologize, but recommend that you find a different writing style.

For the record - my writing style is pretty much tactless and to the point.

 

[dixieagle]

More dodging. I started by clearly identifying the subjects involved. Now I’m getting the what is your definition of is? Please, no more dodging.

The National Organization of Women was evil, demonstrably evil. It helped destabilize marriage and poison male-female relationships in general. To this day, women think they were somehow “liberated.” They weren’t, they fell for the lies of a cult. A Cult of Feminism that took them away from rational Church teaching (this place is called Catholic Answers) and into the hands of those who still want to destroy marriage.

A new movie is coming out about a guy who marries a woman he barely knows. After a short time, he realizes she’s not for him and finds someone else. Feminism in action. Marriage is meaningless to them.

God bless,
Ed

You are apparently specifically requesting opinions about the feminism espoused by the “icons” of the feminist movement as it emerged in the '60s. That was a radical time, and the extreme ideas of Friedan, Steinem, etc., were a perfect fit. There was plenty of negativism and divisiveness fostered by this type of feminism. The animosity towards men that became fashionable (and, in some quarters, persists to this day) has been rejected by posters on this board, and by right-thinking Catholics.

There is no denying, however, that the general agitation for “women’s rights” shone a light on the plight of women in abusive marriages who had been told to “tough it out” because it was their duty to stay with their husbands (this was even told them by priests - I know women to whom this happened.) The work done by women, and their place in the workforce, should they choose or need to work, was given greater respect - no more “glass ceiling.”

The pushing of the pro-abortion agenda, and its acceptance by the majority of Americans was a tragic, evil consequence of the radical feminist agenda. I see, however, more and more bright young women subscribing more to the ideals of Feminists for Life rather than the agenda of the National Organization FOR (to be correct) Women.

Not all women (or men) are called to matrimony; perhaps they might feel they need men as much as fish need bicycles (though I suspect that even they, for the most part, don’t regard men as extraneous to everyday life.) I feel that there has been some softening of the radical rhetoric (except when abortion “rights” are in danger of being curtailed in some way.) Perhaps the day will come when common sense, and Christian attitudes, prevail.

 

[Philothea53]

I thought Ed’s question in post #1 was valid.

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.

You tried to hijack the thread in post #2 - rephrasing Ed’s question -
Perhaps the question would better be expressed as ‘why did Jesus challenge traditional gender roles?’

SoCalRC - you come across as a smarmy know-it-all (on subjects you choose at least), and that you are here to lecture the ignorant savages. Your many “What an odd thought…” comments not-so-subtly declare your own superiority on these matters. How odd that you would accuse others of false superiority.

Of course, written communications lack much in terms of body language, voice tones, etc. So perhaps I’m wrong. In person you may be totally different. If that is the case, then I apologize, but recommend that you find a different writing style.

For the record - my writing style is pretty much tactless and to the point.

I agree. SoCalRC, I bypass much of what you write because of the very reasons stated above.

And for the record, ricmat, I like your writing style It’s right up my alley.

 

[edwest2]

You are apparently specifically requesting opinions about the feminism espoused by the “icons” of the feminist movement as it emerged in the '60s. That was a radical time, and the extreme ideas of Friedan, Steinem, etc., were a perfect fit. There was plenty of negativism and divisiveness fostered by this type of feminism. The animosity towards men that became fashionable (and, in some quarters, persists to this day) has been rejected by posters on this board, and by right-thinking Catholics.

There is no denying, however, that the general agitation for “women’s rights” shone a light on the plight of women in abusive marriages who had been told to “tough it out” because it was their duty to stay with their husbands (this was even told them by priests - I know women to whom this happened.) The work done by women, and their place in the workforce, should they choose or need to work, was given greater respect - no more “glass ceiling.”

The pushing of the pro-abortion agenda, and its acceptance by the majority of Americans was a tragic, evil consequence of the radical feminist agenda. I see, however, more and more bright young women subscribing more to the ideals of Feminists for Life rather than the agenda of the National Organization FOR (to be correct) Women.

Not all women (or men) are called to matrimony; perhaps they might feel they need men as much as fish need bicycles (though I suspect that even they, for the most part, don’t regard men as extraneous to everyday life.) I feel that there has been some softening of the radical rhetoric (except when abortion “rights” are in danger of being curtailed in some way.) Perhaps the day will come when common sense, and Christian attitudes, prevail.

Thank you. I hope you can see that the words still being used today and widely reported by the media are of the radical variety. To call an idea “anti-woman” is actually harmful to women and men. It creates a wall, a sense of separation. Also is the consistent loss of the man in the abortion debate. Did any woman planning an abortion get pregnant by herself? How is it that the man who was there magically disappears and is not a part of a “woman’s right to choose”? I am referring only to situations where the woman chose the man in question to have sex with. “Oh, well, the man is not going to carry the baby.” Yeah? So what? He’s half responsible for it being there in the first place.

You and others keep bringing up the plight of women who were harmed by their spouses or denied opportunities in their lives. What has any of that got to do with Friedan, Steinem and NOW? The goal was not to save the marriage but destroy it. To abort it if you will. To destroy trust between men and women in general. Woman = victim, man = enemy. As far as opportunities, appropriate legal action could have been taken. I hear the ACLU at least used to take up issues like that.

No, the people I’m referring to were selling something: Women as Victims. If you’re a woman, you are born unequal. I hope everyone gets what I’m saying now.

Instead of the humanness of men and women being examined and reconciled, it was thrown into the trash, where it remains for too many.

God bless,
Ed

 

[johnnycatholic]

SocalRC,

You sir are a liberation theologian! Your brand of biblical exigesis posits Jesus simply as a social revolutionary challenging traditional roles. Now I’m no expert on your type of theology because it has been condemned by the Church but I hope you will own up to being a liberation theology purveyor.
Furthurmore, there were no female priests in history. If a woman heard a confession or gave communion it was consecrated by a man and the confessions would only have been for practice as was done amongst monks.
I want to encourage you to read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis over and over and over and over… until it burns in reeeaaaalllll goooood.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ed, the ‘woman as victim’ POV of the last 30 years or so I totally agree with–I do think this has been pushed by the media (and yes, the ‘icons’ you mention have had some part, indeed a major part, in that they started the idea, supported the idea, etc).

Like any propaganda, there is always some grain of truth buried in it. As has been mentioned, there were (and there always will be) individuals who endured abusive marriages. Or individuals who were totally denied equitable pay for their work simply because they were women.

HOWEVER. . .the media twist in trying to make it seem that ALL women were in abusive marriages, simply because ‘all men’ were abusive in some way; or that all men ‘bore the blame’ for thousands of years of ‘repression’ against women. . .and all women were thus ‘victims’ no matter what, and that all men should be apologizing (whether they were personally guilty of anything) simply because they WERE men. . .is reprehensible. And it did a great deal of damage to all men and to all women, and that damage continues today in a breach of ‘trust’ that secretly, or openly, lies between individual men and women. . .who have been inculcated with the beliefs above.

 

[strngrnrth]

You and others keep bringing up the plight of women who were harmed by their spouses or denied opportunities in their lives. What has any of that got to do with Friedan, Steinem and NOW?
God bless,
Ed

It was just a big and clearly explained part of their inspiration. Ideas don’t come from nowhere. Radical thought grows out of extreme circumstances. After a few victories it softens.

 

[Renton405]

Feminism is nothing but of Satan… It is enourmously destructive to familys. It totally reverses and confuses the roles in a stable marriage as well as taking care of children. It destorys the natural nurturing nature of women for their child.

 

[fix]

You mean the letter to Bishops taken out of context… We’ve discussed that.

We have?

I’ve given you several in the past, but you argued that they were not the same, since they were doctrinal. So let’s use another. From Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by Pope John Paul II, and directed to the laity:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Look at #4, particularly after the words: “[M]oral principles that do not admit of exception”

These have not all be declared infallible, but they are principles for which Catholics are instructed that they cannot make exception.

I agree, how does that contradict my position??

Ah, the ‘I know you are but what am I’ tactic! I haven’t seen that since my kids were small and Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was on TV. Somehow I bet you don’t make the same laugh…

What, exactly, have I rejected? I am not trying to invent a Church teaching about proper wifely conduct. I am noting such shocking things as ‘Christ was not evil’ and ‘the Catholic concept of the human person (per the Second Vatican Council) is gender blind…’

Or, the big one - ‘Christ was God, so his teachings are important and respecting them does not diminish him.’

On the other hand, look at what you’ve just said about the Pope, speaking as the Pope (in Encyclical and in our Catechism). How, exactly, does questioning his moral authority on an issue involving the taking of human life not fall under this:

?

I have no idea what your point is? Please start a new thread. From what I have read you seem to deny the all male hierarchy was instituted by Christ?

 

[dixieagle]

You and others keep bringing up the plight of women who were harmed by their spouses or denied opportunities in their lives. What has any of that got to do with Friedan, Steinem and NOW? The goal was not to save the marriage but destroy it. To abort it if you will. To destroy trust between men and women in general. Woman = victim, man = enemy. As far as opportunities, appropriate legal action could have been taken. I hear the ACLU at least used to take up issues like that.
God bless,
Ed

I think that, simply because the whole idea of expanded rights for women (along with the radical baloney) came so much to the forefront, it made it easier for those women in truly abusive relationships, and for women in the workplace, to speak up - residual effects, if you will.

 

[dixieagle]

Feminism is nothing but of Satan… It is enourmously destructive to familys. It totally reverses and confuses the roles in a stable marriage as well as taking care of children. It destorys the natural nurturing nature of women for their child.

That is quite a sweeping statement. If you speak only of the extreme feminism as espoused by Friedan, Steinem, etc., then there is some truth to what you say. However, many very sane, Christian, prolife women would describe themselves as feminists, believing in economic, social and political equality for women.

For example, my young adult daughter is highly educated, earns a good salary at a responsible job, and is, in every way, equal to her husband. Note, however, that “equal to” (in the eyes of God) does not mean “the same as.” She is also a pro-life lobbyist and works to improve the economic situation of disadvantaged and abandoned women and their children. I’m sure recent Popes would applaud her.

This is from “Pope John Paul II on the Genius of Women.”

“As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic state.” And, with respect to political life and leadership, including “the highest levels of representation, national and international,” he holds that “women are showing that they can make as skilled a contribution as men.”

Can’t get much clearer than that.

God bless!

 

[edwest2]

I am still puzzled at the apparent attempt by some to steer this away from my original question. If you want to start a separate thread about different types of “feminism” go right ahead.

All of the various “liberation” movements that started in the late 1960s have led too many Catholics astray and turned male-female relationships into something anti-Biblical.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Contarini]

I am still puzzled at the apparent attempt by some to steer this away from my original question. If you want to start a separate thread about different types of “feminism” go right ahead.

All of the various “liberation” movements that started in the late 1960s have led too many Catholics astray and turned male-female relationships into something anti-Biblical.

Your post answers itself. Your second paragraph makes a sweeping statement covering many different types of “feminism.” If you want to argue about the specific impact of Gloria Steinem and the NOW, then you need not to make statements like "All the various ‘liberation’ movements. . . "

Furthermore, I don’t think these distinctions (whether between Steinem and other figures, or between 60s feminism and older versions) hold up well, because movements and individuals influence each other and flow into each other. It’s better to distinguish specific ideas and propositions, but that would defeat the purpose of your post.

In short, I don’t think your post is answerable. You could rephrase it as “how have the roles of women changed for the better since 1960?” I for one could take you up on that. But are Steinem and her allies responsible for any of the good stuff? I don’t know and don’t really care.

Edwin

 

[dixieagle]

I am still puzzled at the apparent attempt by some to steer this away from my original question. If you want to start a separate thread about different types of “feminism” go right ahead.

All of the various “liberation” movements that started in the late 1960s have led too many Catholics astray and turned male-female relationships into something anti-Biblical.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,

I think you won’t be satisfied until everyone on the board says that women should have stayed in the kitchen, out of the workplace, and that no change in the way women were viewed was necessary. Sorry, can’t do that, as it’s not true, and I am a very conservative, traditional wife (33 yrs.) and mother who stayed home with my children, only worked part time when they were in high school, and recently “retired” to spend more time in “domestic pursuits.”

The results of the “women’s movement” have been mixed.

I think it is absolutely necessary to differentiate between radical “feminism”, which you seem to be fixated upon, and a true feminism, of the variety Pope John Paul II wrote eloquently about (quoted in one of my previous posts.)

That’s about as clear as I can get.

God bless.

 

[edwest2]

Then please start a thread on “true feminism.”

Please do not accuse me of something I did not write.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rayne100]

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.

Gee I wonder why she would have a problem?
Your terminology is off putting and condescending, I suspect that’s why she had a problem being submissive.

 

[dixieagle]

Then please start a thread on “true feminism.”

Please do not accuse me of something I did not write.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,

These are excerpts from your original post:

*"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…

…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…"*

It’s clear from your own words that you have no use for “feminism” which you insist on defining narrowly. The issue is much more nuanced than you admit. I stand by my previous quote of JPII, who pretty much summed up the Christian view of women’s rights. I don’t think anything else is required

Blessings!