Should women be treated as equals

[Londoner]

I was actually replying to @edwest211.

You likely won’t find studies done by liberals because they don’t care; they have no reason to.

I don’t understand why liberals wouldn’t care about biases in academia and why they wouldn’t be interested in conducting studies on it. Being liberal doesn’t mean not caring about objectivity.

I think you’re conflating a number of factors that are actually quite separate and in some instances even contradictory. You talk about the Republican and Democratic parties, Marxism, socialism, liberalism, egalitarianism, and breaking down social class structures. You focus on ‘equality of outcome’, but you simply cannot separate equality of outcome from equality of opportunity.

Your first fallacy is suggesting that the Democratic Party is socialist, or even Marxist. In truth, the Democratic Party is politically centrist and socially only tentatively liberal. E.g., with one or two exceptions (e.g. Carter and Dukakis), Democrats have tended to support the death penalty. Clinton greatly expanded the scope of the federal death penalty, and even Obama, beloved of European liberals, supports the death penalty. If you were to compare the US Democratic Party with parties on the British political spectrum it would align quite closely with our Conservative Party (possibly even the right wing of the Conservative Party). Even the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, e.g. as represented by Sanders, aligns with social democracy in the Nordic countries.

Marxism and socialism are not synonymous. If you consider Marxism as a theory explaining the development of economic systems, it is correct that socialism is supposedly a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Therefore all Marxists are necessarily socialists. However, most socialists are not Marxists. Mainstream socialists today recognise a moderate form of socialism as an end in itself. This includes education and healthcare free at the point of use, welfare provision for those unable to work, a mandatory living wage for all workers, and strong, independent labour unions. None of this envisions communism as the eventual goal.

Liberalism and egalitarianism are ideas that predate Marxism by a century or more. They are ideas found in French and British political philosophy of the eighteenth century, finding expression in the revolutions in France and the British colonies that became the United States. Countries that enjoy both the lowest levels of inequality and the highest levels of social mobility (such as the Nordic countries) have managed to achieve this without recourse to seizure of the means of production.

Marxism, and the more dogmatic forms of socialism, are, in fact, inherently illiberal and anti-egalitarian. It is impossible for a society to be truly liberal if its citizens do not enjoy economic freedom. Indeed, because the more extreme forms of socialism are fundamentally unnatural, an element of conflict between the state and the citizen is built into the system. This necessitates both deprivation of freedom and the creation of a privileged ruling class (the nomenklatura in Soviet terms).

 

[Londoner]

That is not true.

Well, it is true. It is demonstrably true. For example, the brilliant UK-based American and British journalist Hadley Freeman. She is a self-identified feminist. In her columns for The Guardian she often writes about being a mother.

To some people’s surprise, our prime minister, Theresa May, has been photographed wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogan, ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ (back in 2006, before she was prime minister). She does not have children. This is apparently due to a medical condition affecting either her or her husband, and she is on record as expressing regret at not having been able to have children.

Going further back in history, Emmeline Pankhurst was married with five children. Her daughter Adela was married with six children. Another of her daughters, Sylvia, had a child with her long-term partner Silvio Corio, although they didn’t marry as a matter of principle. From a similar period of history Elizabeth Garrett Anderson also had a husband and three children.

I could, of course, go on and on providing examples of feminists who also have husbands and children. Dame Jenni Murray, for example, distinguished BBC broadcaster, has a husband and two sons. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: husband, son, daughter. Etc.

 

[Aquinas11]

So what do you propose?

It’s in my first post on the topic. Both genders realizing they are desperately needed in the family to play different, but equal roles. Like a goalie and forward in soccer team play different roles but aren’t unequal. But if goalie thinks he’s not equal unless he’s also a forward, now your team will lose since you have 2 forwards and no goalie guarding the net & team will lose. That’s families today where both genders are insisting on doing the same role since they’re confusing “different” with “unequal”. Once the genders start to play their equal yet different roles, families will start to win again. Until then we can keep playing this stupid PC game that sacrifices families and children for vanity of both genders insisting on playing same role!

So what do you propose?Ban women from working outside their homes?

Unfortunately, it seems a few posters here propose exactly that.

Unfortunately, it seems a few posters propose women should be exploited to maximize the profits of old rich oligarch men. These oligarchs doubled the number of workers to cut worker wages so to maximize their profits. It’s disgusting.

 

[Londoner]

Maybe you’re too young to remember what happened in Romania. Women were forced by the government to have at least four children. Those who did not were fined. The result, a lot of children dumped into orphanages.

Yes, it’s curious that religion (not just Catholicism) is blamed (often rightly, I am sure) for the abuse of women, but that the very worst abuses of women are probably those carried out under atheist regimes. Interestingly, these abuses range from virtually compulsory pregnancy (and a total ban on contraception and abortion) in Ceaușescu’s Romania to forced sterilisation in Nazi Germany and forced abortion in China and North Korea.

 

[ewohdrol]

I am saddened by some of the comments, expectations and thinly veiled misogyny found by some posters.

The misguided view of women not being educated is not a catholic one. I would hate an external visitor stumble across this thread and have their view of Catholicism tainted to something it is not.

 

[Lea101]

No, that there is half the workers thus worker has more value and gets more wage

If there is half, and the demand is high, they would be doing more work.

I don’t blame your frustration. If I was a feminist and found out feminist movement I’d fought for my whole life was only to help old rich oligarchs maximize their profits by minimizing wages through doubling workers, I’d be angry too. I’d be really upset too. I’d probably take it out on bearer of bad news too

Pretty adorable how you intentionally took out JPII from that quotation. I’d be embarrassed too, to go on and on about women working only to be shown how the Church explicitly supports women in the public sphere.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Your first fallacy is suggesting that the Democratic Party is socialist, or even Marxist. In truth, the Democratic Party is politically centrist and socially only tentatively liberal.

I gotta concur with this. Like them or hate them, by the political standards of the rest of the world I wouldn’t class the democratic party as left wing. Relative to the GOP, sure. But compared to parties in Europe I think it falls in the centre.

 

[Sarcelle]

So what is your vision of a righteous society?

Is it women staying home, leaving all the jobs to men?

Does this include single women staying home under the authority of their fathers while married women are under the authority of their husbands?

Are women allowed education?

Can women have their own property or bank account?

When I refer to women, I am talking about married and single.

 

[Londoner]

I suggest getting a copy of 1984 by George Orwell. The current situation is far worse than he predicted.

Really? I am interested to know how the situation where you live “is far worse than” Nineteen Eighty-Four. Where I live, which cannot be wholly dissimilar to where you live, we have democracy, a multi-party system, free and fair elections, parliamentary sovereignty, a strong and entirely independent judiciary, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, academic freedom, no death penalty, no corporal punishment, no torture, humane prison conditions, due process, open justice, jury trial, multiple levels of appeals, minimal state interference in the private lives of its citizens. I am interested to know how the situation where you live differs from this and is therefore “worse than” Orwell’s vision of the future. (If you are in the USA I know that you do not, for example, have a concept of parliamentary sovereignty and that your most senior judges are appointed by the executive subject to confirmation by the legislative branch, but I’m not quibbling over minor details.)

Edit: also, of course, unlike in 1984, we have international cooperation through organisations such as the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the EU, and the Commonwealth, we respect international law and the jurisdiction of international courts, we maintain diplomatic relations with almost every country in the world, and we are not involved in a deliberately pointless and interminable war with an implacable and similarly motivated enemy.

 

[niceatheist]

Sarcelle:

Maybe you’re too young to remember what happened in Romania. Women were forced by the government to have at least four children. Those who did not were fined. The result, a lot of children dumped into orphanages.

Yes, it’s curious that religion (not just Catholicism) is blamed (often rightly, I am sure) for the abuse of women, but that the very worst abuses of women are probably those carried out under atheist regimes. Interestingly, these abuses range from virtually compulsory pregnancy (and a total ban on contraception and abortion) in Ceaușescu’s Romania to forced sterilisation in Nazi Germany and forced abortion in China and North Korea.

One quibble is that Nazi Germany wasn’t atheist. The top Nazis had pretty peculiar beliefs, but they weren’t atheists. They just likely weren’t Christians.

But one would have to look at the treatment of women prior to those other countries becoming Communist. As well, at least on paper (and to some extent in reality) women under the Soviet regime in Russia actually did see significant improvements.

 

[Londoner]

That’s true. I suppose what I mean is that Nazi ideology tended to reject conventional religious beliefs in favour of a bizarre and incoherent fusion of atheism, paganism, Indian religions, and aspects of Catholicism and Lutheranism.

I’d also agree that some communist regimes did indeed elevate the status of women in society. Would it have been possible, for example, for Anna Walentynowicz to have become a welder and crane operator, and later a prominent trade unionist, had she not spent the greater part of her life living under the communist regime in Poland? Hoxha’s Albania is probably another good example. This article was interesting and a seemingly fair assessment of Hoxha’s achievements and failures: Gendered legacies of Communist Albania: a paradox of progress.

 

[niceatheist]

The thing I find interesting about a number of Communist regimes was how, in the early stages of their governments, at least lip service was paid to overthrowing old social norms that had often lead to injustice (after all, these revolutions were often more than simply political and economic in nature), but just as often the old traditions would find their way back in. For instance, after Mao gained control of China, he did everything in his power to eradicate Confucianism, and yet so deeply was it ingrained in the Chinese psyche that, particularly after his death, it effectively became one of the operating principles of Chinese government once again.

I’d argue that anti-female policies in places like Romania probably stemmed from the old prejudices. Certainly Communism as envisioned by Lenin and other prominent Bolsheviks, at least in Russia, spent some effort on dealing with issues of women’s suffrage and increasing educational opportunities for women. In no small part this was because countries like Russia and China needed to industrialize very quickly, and the old social order was essentially agrarian and feudal in nature. Essentially, Russia and China needed lots and lots of skilled and educated workers, and had little choice but to make sure those opportunities were open for women as well.

Needless to say, women’s rights had been a growing issue since the mid-19th century, as the voting franchise in most Western countries was steadily increased. There were some rather appalling examples of how the patriarchal system left women, particularly working class women, in often dire straits should the husband die or abscond, forced either to remarry (not an easy thing if she already had a number of children) or eek out whatever living she could in the professions deemed appropriate for women at the time.

 

[Sbee0]

600 posts and I’m still not sure what the discussion is here or the point of this question. Does this have to do with the Catholic faith and if so is there actually a belief that Catholics/Catholicism don’t believe women should be treated as equals?

The answer is no.

 

[niceatheist]

600 posts and I’m still not sure what the discussion is here or the point of this question. Does this have to do with the Catholic faith and if so is there actually a belief that Catholics/Catholicism don’t believe women should be treated as equals?

The answer is no.

Well there are two strains. One is the view (probably a bit of flamebait) that women shouldn’t be working, that it disrupts the social order and defies God’s will. The other seems to be a general diatribe against “radical feminists”, though the term isn’t really well defined.

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

I just read
All 605
Posts on this thread.

At certain points I had things to say, but having made it to what is presently the end I have little to show for myself save that I didn’t actually barf (a stomach virus is sweeping its way through my family)

I’m glad I went to college and earned two degrees which I actually used to support myself until such a time as I met the man God had waiting for me. I continued to use them to work outside the home until such a time as my husband earned enough for me to stay home. So until our fourth child, those degrees kept my family afloat.

I have 4 kids so far. I wouldn’t say me attending college drastically reduced the world population.

Little teenage me used to think feminism was a dirty word. Then I read Mulieris Dignitatem and understood my worth, the dignity of women, and our role in salvation history in such a way that I want everyone else to know. I can describe it only as feminism. I’m a feminist. It diverges from other camps within feminism in a lot of ways, but is feminism none the less.

Lastly, my life experiences that I’ve just vomited out are only that. My experiences. It would be foolish of me to say thats how it is for everyone just as it would be foolish to overromanticize bygone eras.

 

[angel12]

The other seems to be a general diatribe against “radical feminists”, though the term isn’t really well defined.

Seems to cover anything from the literallly “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” group (a distinct minority), to any woman who dares ask for equal opportunity in the workplace.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Surely the OP was jesting, or was that jousting, when he began this thread

His question

‘Are there any negatives in a woman earning a degree?’

Now this question really should be read as does a woman earning the degree have any negatives…
is she late with her homework
does she get too anxious in exams
is she a bad note taker
does she participate in group projects as a team player
does she practice good personal hygiene ( I have known some pretty lax student peers)
does she bring her christian values and critical thinking to her work and demeanor.
is she scholarship material

But this is not how people have interpreted this question.

It is being read as

Are there any negatives, or what are the negatives, in allowing a woman to earn a degree.
vis a vis,
what negative and detrimental impact will an educated chorum of women have on society

 

[Adrian169]

I’d say that anyone has an opportunity to earn a degree, and if they worked for it, they deserve to have it. To answer your question if women should be treated as equals, I’d say yes, women are human beings and therefore, should be treated as they treat you.

 

[Londoner]

As Rebecca West famously said, ‘I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.’

 

[niceatheist]

As Rebecca West famously said, ‘I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.’

Well there are certainly different streams of feminist thought, and certainly along the margins you’ll see the Neo-Marxists and other extremists groups. But the main body of feminism has never been anti-mother, anti-family, or really anything but anti-discrimination. Obviously mainstream feminism is going to differ with Catholic doctrine on some matters like birth control, but just because the two groups won’t agree with each other on every point hardly means the two groups are in total opposition to each other.

There are vested in interests in the more marginal factions in both groups that want there to be a war between Feminism and the Church, but for most feminists, probably the big thing that’s going to ruffle feminists’ feathers is reproductive rights. But then again, there are plenty of mainstream Christian churches that are essentially opposed to the Church on that score, and no lack of Catholics that aren’t really in agreement with the Church’s position.