Positive results of feminism ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of posters mention that “Equal Pay” and presumably, “Equal Opportunity” have been Positive effects of Feminism. That position seems incompetent (no offense meant, just a fact) to me, because Equal Pay encourages Women To Work and, as an unavoidable result, discourages Men To Work, because Men have to compete with them, instead of just **taking care of them! **:rolleyes:

So, it seems reasonable to conclude: it is toxic to family life and, by extension, Life As We Know It.

All the “positives” from Feminism seem to revolve around, The Sexual Revolution/The Modern Era and its fallout.
:stretcher:
Perhaps I’m not understanding something. What’s wrong with women supporting themselves? and why on earth would equal pay DIScourage men to work? I don’t get that…then again…I don’t know.
When I go back to work tomorrow night, I will ask my (male) co-worker if this is so. I suspect he will say no. Then again, who knows?

I hope equality is not toxic to family life.😦 My son seems to be doing just fine, thankyouverymuch…and while it can be pretty hard on occasion being a single parent (my husband and I are separated, we live in different states) for the most part, it’s been pretty OK, and I am very lucky to have a career to be able to live ok without any support from any one else:D
(or are you being sarcastic and I’m too dense to pick up on this? I can’t tell…)
 
I think you are better off paying married men more than unmarried men. That’s the ticket.

No. People should be paid what they are worth in terms of education/training, experience, and ability to do said job. That’s it. That’s all. No, a married man should NOT be paid more than a single man, or a woman, or whatever.
I would be one highly pissed individual if I found out that I was getting less than a married man who had the same amount of training, experience, and ability…simply b/c he was married with a wife and kids to support. SO? I have a child to support, too…and even if I DID NOT, what’s that to anyone? I am performing the same service, I should get paid the same. Don’t matter what my life is like outside of my job. That’s*** my*** problem.
 
It isn’t surprising to see Homosexuals demanding rights; after all they live in a culture that has created an environment that encourages Homosexuality. And you can say the same thing about Feminism; we live in a culture that discourages, female reliance on men.
I do agree with you on your last point. When one is 18, male or female, one is supposed to go out and support themselves. Since few are married by then, this makes it seem unlikely for the idea to cross a woman’s mind that she is supposed to be relying upon a man at this point.
 
Well, I for one can tell you I’m glad feminism [not radical feminism] exists. I can have a job. I can get an education. I won’t be forced to marry one of my father’s wealthy business associates, or some cousin to keep the family line pure. I’m glad if I get married I won’t be beaten or raped by my husband who would be protected by law. I’m glad that if I got married and my husband committed adulterly that the law would ensure I was protected fiscally, as well as any children we may have had. I’m glad I have the right to vote, to own property, to inherit property, to not be sold into prosititution or slavery.

What I’m currently not glad about is that women still get paid less then a man for the same job, some women are still being trated like property, some women still can’t vote or drive or even show their face in public in some countries. There’s a long way to go before I’d say feminism has acheived its primary purpose of equality between the sexes.

Real feminism is pro-life, it recognises equality but difference between th genders. Just because someone is different doesn’t mean they’re not equal. It’s taken me many years to see that feminism at its root is pro-woman, pro-man, pro-family, pro-life, and all of these things sit nicely within the confines of Catholic teaching.

Men need to harden up, we’re not out to castrate you or flick you off your peddlestool, or we want is equality and the same rights you enjoy.

And real women need to speak out against the radical feminism of the 60s and 70s that ensured all sorts of abominations were allowed to run rampent.
 
phoenixrrt62,

I was teasing Cambridge. I understand how galling it would be to find out the guy in the next cubicle was paid more while you were struggling at home too and you were just as fine an employee.
 
I look at my grandmother to see the benefits. She lived through this era and in fact it may have saved her life. She married her HS sweetheart who turned out to be a wife-beater and went as far beating her children. Her ability to get a divorce and then the further ability of her to leave the home and get an education for herself were invaluable.

Another benefit that people often skip over it the fact that women could finally be recognized for their own accomplishments in science and other “male” fields. No longer did that have to worry about a man’s name being attached to their work. For example Marie Curie.
 
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
Your not writing clearly here Ed.

Are you referring to physical or metaphorical distances?
 
Patriarchal? Can we agree that Jesus was a man and that God the Father is a man?

God bless,
Ed
It was my understanding of Catholic doctrine that God the Father was masculine, but God is not literally a male.
 
To this day, Gloria Steinem is identified as a “feminist icon.” Obviously, no one wishes to answer the question as I wrote it. Other feminists groups are off topic.

Also, God defining Himself as a man, and becoming flesh as a man are off topic as well, in so far as I am interested in the social justice achievements, if any, of feminism.

God bless,
Ed
Do you realize the theological implications of what you are saying Ed?

If God the Father and God the Son are literally men but there is no divine woman that means that femininity is inferior in the most spiritual and cosmic sense.

Of course its not an issue for me.
But if I were a Catholic women I would find that thought very disturbing.
 
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.
👍:clapping::
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40 View Post
As for my wife, like I said that is between her and God. My mom use to say show me a man who can love me like Christ loves the Church and I will be submissive to him. I just say, it has to start some place.

Ah, the Church of Mom. I thought we were talking about Catholicism(QUOTE.)

It seems like a contradiction in terms, however plenty of men love their mothers but despise women in general. Its actually something of a cliche at this point.
 
The dodging and weaving is tremendous. I have to conclude that there are a few apologists for the type of feminism I’ve been asking about here. No one wants to meet this head on. Too bad.

God bless,
Ed
What do you expect?

From what I have seen this board is mainly inhabited by mainstream and conservative Catholics. People like YOU Ed.
 
I have explained that it is hard to answer your question itself. We are trying to address the issue in the only possible ways. It is difficult or impossible to evaluate the effect on public policies of three or so books by different authors. I grew up with the fish/bicycle quote as a popular joke, not a political agenda, and I thought it was funny. I was a child. I don’t know what the author meant by it except that maybe she meant that she could live on her own. As for Ms. Steinem, I have read Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, in which she talks about life on the lecture circuit and about the abuse of women and girls worldwide. She is for abortion and I’m certainly not. She seems to see homosexuality as healthy and I definitely don’t. She doesn’t seem to see men as automatically the enemy, though. She just want it to be somewhat easier to be a woman or girl. I don’t recall all the rest of what she said because it was a long time ago. I’m neither dodging nor weaving. I just don’t understand what kind of answers you expect to a question like you asked.
🤷 :confused:
I think Ed wants some liberal Catholics to try justifying things like abortion, gay marriage, and birth control (using feminist arguments) so that he can attack those oppositions.
 
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
Ed please stop projecting (I have seen you write).
 
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.
So giving women the right to vote, or own property in their own name was Satanic?

Women’s advocates who argue that domestic abuse should be illegal (and that a man DOES NOT have the right to beat his wife and children) are Satanic?
 
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
It should be noted that ‘all the various liberation movements’ would include the Civil Rights movement.

Moreover you need to understand that Ed seems to regard everything modern as bad, and all the changes since the 1950s as negative.
 
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!
It should be noted that Pope John Paul II and even Pope Benedict would be considered radical feminists by Catholics prior to the 20th century.

Just compare what Pope Pius X said about women in 1904:
“In public meetings, never allow women to take the word, however respectable or pious they may seem. If on a specific occasion bishops consider it opportune to permit a meeting for women by themselves, these may not speak except under the presidency and supervision of high ecclesiastical personalities.”

To what Pope John Paul II said during his reign:
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.
 
Once again, I would still appreciate a response to my original question and not a recasting or rephrasing, if you, or anyone else, doesn’t mind.

God bless,
Ed
Ed, this poster directly answered your question.
I suggest you read this post again.

Oct 17, '07, 9:23 am
LSK LSK is offline
Book Club Member

Join Date: February 2, 2005
Location: Modesto, CA
Posts: 3,122
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Positive results of feminism ?
The positive results of the feminism of the 1960’s as first put forward by Friedan and NOW was a re-examination of many laws that reduced a woman to chattle-status. A very negative effect of this same brand of feminism was the abolition of laws that ultimately protected women from being exploited, degraded and abused.

This is, of course, a very broad answer - ultimately, to view the feminist movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s as only negative is to ignore the hardships experienced by women prior to the re-examination of such things as credit laws, educational quotas, and inability to access certain types of employment possibilities that would allow for financial security and freedom. To see the same era in terms of only glowing achievement would ignore the havoc that resulted from things like ‘no-fault divorce’ and poorly written affirmative action laws.

All in all, the movement seems to reflect the fallen nature of human beings in general - we always have a way of taking a good idea and blowing it in pursuit of our own selfishness…
 
Positive results of feminism ?

None, other than yet another “experiment in evil” which God will use to bring forth “even more good”.
Women seeking protection from abuse and/or rights equal to men is evil:confused:
 
I think it revictimized victims of abusive husbands and offered them hope for not a better relationship with men but a future filled with power and empowerment. But, once again, relationships between human beings involving true love, true caring and true partnership are not meant to be power plays negotiated at a conference table. Betty Friedan described the family as “a comfortable concentration camp.” Modern Feminism became a cult and its leaders convinced women to be and remain victims of what they called a patriarchal society bent on their subjugation.

God bless,
Ed

I have BEEN in a cult Ed. My parents joined (and later left) the Church Universal and Triumphant when I was a child.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top