Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[Xantippe]

I recently came across a new-to-me suffragist poet named Alice Duer Miller (1874-1942).

Do not worry, Super Luigi–this is a genuine first wave feminist!

She has a poem entitled Chivalry that I will quote here:

“Chivalry:

"It’s treating a woman politely
As long as she isn’t a fright:
It’s guarding the girls who act rightly,
If you can be judge of what’s right;
It’s being—not just, but so pleasant;
It’s tipping while wages are low;
It’s making a beautiful present,
And failing to pay what you owe.”

goodreads.com/quotes/6873758-chivalry-it-s-treating-a-woman-politely-as-long-as-she

It looks like the poem came out in a book published in 1915.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yeah, that’s just about the worst thing possible–trying to get your stalker to set you up with somebody else.



But everybody does dumb stuff. (A couple nights ago, I was embarrassing my big kids by telling them about this time that I had a thing for a boy when I was 16 and was calling and calling and calling him and just “happening” to be where I knew he was going to be.) You cringe when you remember that stuff, but hopefully you learn–like not ever doing whatever stuff Suzie the Stalker has been doing.

You sound so much more confident!

I wouldn’t really consider that stalking, but it’s not something to do today in today’s hyper-sensitive society where people are so decadent and bored they look for drama, to be victim and be owed.

 

[Xantippe]

I wouldn’t really consider that stalking, but it’s not something to do today in today’s hyper-sensitive society where people are so decadent and bored they look for drama, to be victim and be owed.

There’s always some form of social sensitivity.

For example, 200+ years ago, people were so touchy about honor and insults that dueling was common, and indeed expected under certain circumstances.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr

history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-kills-charles-dickinson-in-duel

Edited to add: People say stuff on social media these days that, 200 years ago, would have led to them having to fight to the death or face disgrace.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Xantippe;14768770]There’s always some form of social sensitivity.

Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.

For example, 200+ years ago, people were so touchy about honor and insults that dueling was common, and indeed expected under certain circumstances.

Not a nice solution, but they fought it out amongst themselves and didn’t go whining to the king about how so and so was being mean and laws should be passed to restrict that person’s freedom of speech and religion.

Edited to add: People say stuff on social media these days that, 200 years ago, would have led to them having to fight to the death or face disgrace.

Most of the bad stuff said on social media wouldn’t be said to anyone’s face anyways. People just aren’t that brave today.

That especially means these so-called social justice warriors would probably wouldn’t last a minute at an American 1960s Civil Rights march let alone a duel with real swords.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So I’m curious…why are some of you so reluctant to criticize feminism, yet more than willing to roll up your sleeve against the big bad red pill men?

 

[Xantippe]

So I’m curious…why are some of you so reluctant to criticize feminism, yet more than willing to roll up your sleeve against the big bad red pill men?

You may notice that the title of this thread is “Things I learned from feminism I wish I’d learned from Christianity.”

 

[Xantippe]

Not a nice solution, but they fought it out amongst themselves and didn’t go whining to the king about how so and so was being mean and laws should be passed to restrict that person’s freedom of speech and religion.

Nah, they just killed each other–and not just for insults delivered face to face.

And let’s not kid each other–freedom of speech and religion has not exactly been universal in all times and places, and not even in the US.

For example, abolitionist literature was illegal in the South before the Civil War.

Or, to take another example, it was illegal from 1873 on to circulate information about contraception.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

 

[DarkLight]

You may notice that the title of this thread is “Things I learned from feminism I wish I’d learned from Christianity.”

Right. And none of us are arguing for, say, abortion on demand - we’re just not seeing that arguing against it is particularly relevant at the moment.

 

[JoyousCatholic]

Femininity of a woman, treating her with consideration, respect and dignity should be commonplace for men.

One does not need to resort to feminism in order to treat a woman with dignity or respect.

Personally, I am not a fan of feminism. I find a vast majority of its ideologies very anti-women, anti-men and anti-Biblical doctrine.

People these days seem to confuse being a decent human being with being a feminist.

This article might help:
tradcatfem.com/2017/06/28/feminism-is-anything-but-feminine/

 

[DarkLight]

Femininity of a woman, treating her with consideration, respect and dignity should be commonplace for men.

One does not need to resort to feminism in order to treat a woman with dignity or respect.

Personally, I am not a fan of feminism. I find a vast majority of its ideologies very anti-women, anti-men and anti-Biblical doctrine.

People these days seem to confuse being a decent human being with being a feminist.

This article might help:
tradcatfem.com/2017/06/28/feminism-is-anything-but-feminine/

You might be surprised. There’s a reason a lot of us are suspicious of people who talk to much about the “dignity of women.” Because for someone like me, “dignity of women” means I should have not gotten my philosophy degrees (what could I need it for, except to vaunt myself as an authority over a man?) and instead focused on getting married and preparing myself to be a stay-at-home mother. Maybe if I really wanted I could do something appropriately feminine like teaching or nursing. If I married, I would be expected to go along with my husband in all things without expecting support in return, other than financial support. Oh no, wanting a degree and intellectual engagement and all that was “imitating men,” I shouldn’t do that.

And that doesn’t even get into the whole modesty stuff, and stuff around sexual assault, that I mentioned at the start. It became pretty clear to me at some point that I could never be modest enough in anything considered realistic western attire to not be blamed. (I’m not talking about fashion here, just not wearing a burka or something that would look at home on little house on the prairie.)

Many of our great Catholic saints would have been highly offensive and would have been labelled as having been infected by “anti-Biblical Christian values” by the people who scorn feminism. St. Catherine of Siena, for example, would certainly have been labelled disobedient to authority, stubbornly refusing marriage, daring to teach men, and meddling in the affairs of religious authorities. In short, a rebellious woman who was trying to imitate a man rather than accepting her God-given role.

 

[Lea101]

So I’m curious…why are some of you so reluctant to criticize feminism, yet more than willing to roll up your sleeve against the big bad red pill men?

(besides the fact that this is a thread about the positive aspects of feminism that we wish catholicism was as vocal about)

I can only speak for myself but feminism has a literal definition while the red pill has yet to have a clear definition on what it actually stands for. There are literally different types of feminists (from radical feminism to Pope JP’s idea of new feminism) that it’s confusing to just bash on it as a whole. With TRP, it’s all a huge mess.

And even those really loud pro choice, gender-fluid-bending-avatar women constantly talk about equality (although it’s obvious it’s not true). However loud TRP men openly state they want patriarchy.

 

[Lea101]

You might be surprised. There’s a reason a lot of us are suspicious of people who talk to much about the “dignity of women.” Because for someone like me, “dignity of women” means I should have not gotten my philosophy degrees (what could I need it for, except to vaunt myself as an authority over a man?) and instead focused on getting married and preparing myself to be a stay-at-home mother. Maybe if I really wanted I could do something appropriately feminine like teaching or nursing. If I married, I would be expected to go along with my husband in all things without expecting support in return, other than financial support. Oh no, wanting a degree and intellectual engagement and all that was “imitating men,” I shouldn’t do that.

And that doesn’t even get into the whole modesty stuff, and stuff around sexual assault, that I mentioned at the start. It became pretty clear to me at some point that I could never be modest enough in anything considered realistic western attire to not be blamed. (I’m not talking about fashion here, just not wearing a burka or something that would look at home on little house on the prairie.)

Many of our great Catholic saints would have been highly offensive and would have been labelled as having been infected by “anti-Biblical Christian values” by the people who scorn feminism. St. Catherine of Siena, for example, would certainly have been labelled disobedient to authority, stubbornly refusing marriage, daring to teach men, and meddling in the affairs of religious authorities. In short, a rebellious woman who was trying to imitate a man rather than accepting her God-given role.

Agreed. I feel there’s a tendency for traditional catholics to mix cultural attitudes about women and catholicism.

We can’t act as if Mary will faint at the thought of assertive women who prefer engineering over being a SAHM.

 

[Sarcelle]

You might be surprised. There’s a reason a lot of us are suspicious of people who talk to much about the “dignity of women.” Because for someone like me, “dignity of women” means I should have not gotten my philosophy degrees (what could I need it for, except to vaunt myself as an authority over a man?) and instead focused on getting married and preparing myself to be a stay-at-home mother. Maybe if I really wanted I could do something appropriately feminine like teaching or nursing. If I married, I would be expected to go along with my husband in all things without expecting support in return, other than financial support. Oh no, wanting a degree and intellectual engagement and all that was “imitating men,” I shouldn’t do that.

And that doesn’t even get into the whole modesty stuff, and stuff around sexual assault, that I mentioned at the start. It became pretty clear to me at some point that I could never be modest enough in anything considered realistic western attire to not be blamed. (I’m not talking about fashion here, just not wearing a burka or something that would look at home on little house on the prairie.)

Many of our great Catholic saints would have been highly offensive and would have been labelled as having been infected by “anti-Biblical Christian values” by the people who scorn feminism. St. Catherine of Siena, for example, would certainly have been labelled disobedient to authority, stubbornly refusing marriage, daring to teach men, and meddling in the affairs of religious authorities. In short, a rebellious woman who was trying to imitate a man rather than accepting her God-given role.

There is this erroneous assumption out there that a true Catholic woman would have the personality and intellect of a church mouse. All is us would look like we came out of the stamp labeled “Good Catholic Women”.

The saints have given themselves to God and in doing so have found their true individuality. Jesus says something about losing oneself in order to find oneself. Thus we have Saints ranging from Joan of Arc to Gertrude Stein to Therese of Lisieux.

We are not meant to be clones of one another, even women. We are individuals and not household appliances.

 

[Xantippe]

(besides the fact that this is a thread about the positive aspects of feminism that we wish catholicism was as vocal about)

I can only speak for myself but feminism has a literal definition while the red pill has yet to have a clear definition on what it actually stands for. There are literally different types of feminists (from radical feminism to Pope JP’s idea of new feminism) that it’s confusing to just bash on it as a whole. With TRP, it’s all a huge mess.

And even those really loud pro choice, gender-fluid-bending-avatar women constantly talk about equality (although it’s obvious it’s not true). However loud TRP men openly state they want patriarchy.

Yes. MRAs might talk about equality, but RP guys are all about dominance and (in the words of a previous RP poster on this thread), squeezing the most possible out of women.

 

[Xantippe]

There is this erroneous assumption out there that a true Catholic woman would have the personality and intellect of a church mouse. All is us would look like we came out of the stamp labeled “Good Catholic Women”.

The saints have given themselves to God and in doing so have found their true individuality. Jesus says something about losing oneself in order to find oneself. Thus we have Saints ranging from Joan of Arc to Gertrude Stein to Therese of Lisieux.

We are not meant to be clones of one another, even women. We are individuals and not household appliances.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

You might be surprised. There’s a reason a lot of us are suspicious of people who talk to much about the “dignity of women.” Because for someone like me, “dignity of women” means I should have not gotten my philosophy degrees (what could I need it for, except to vaunt myself as an authority over a man?) and instead focused on getting married and preparing myself to be a stay-at-home mother. Maybe if I really wanted I could do something appropriately feminine like teaching or nursing. If I married, I would be expected to go along with my husband in all things without expecting support in return, other than financial support. Oh no, wanting a degree and intellectual engagement and all that was “imitating men,” I shouldn’t do that.

And that doesn’t even get into the whole modesty stuff, and stuff around sexual assault, that I mentioned at the start. It became pretty clear to me at some point that I could never be modest enough in anything considered realistic western attire to not be blamed. (I’m not talking about fashion here, just not wearing a burka or something that would look at home on little house on the prairie.)

Many of our great Catholic saints would have been highly offensive and would have been labelled as having been infected by “anti-Biblical Christian values” by the people who scorn feminism. St. Catherine of Siena, for example, would certainly have been labelled disobedient to authority, stubbornly refusing marriage, daring to teach men, and meddling in the affairs of religious authorities. In short, a rebellious woman who was trying to imitate a man rather than accepting her God-given role.

St. Clare of Assissi was similarly uncooperative.

"Although there is no mention of this in any historical record, it is assumed that Clare was to be married in line with the family tradition. However, at the age of 18 she heard Francis preach during a Lenten service in the church of San Giorgio at Assisi and asked him to help her to live after the manner of the Gospel. On the evening of Palm Sunday, March 20, 1212, she left her father’s house and accompanied by her aunt Bianca and another companion proceeded to the chapel of the Porziuncula to meet Francis. There, her hair was cut, and she exchanged her rich gown for a plain robe and veil.

“Francis placed Clare in the convent of the Benedictine nuns of San Paulo, near Bastia. Her father attempted to force her to return home. She clung to the altar of the church and threw aside her veil to show her cropped hair. She resisted any attempt, professing that she would have no other husband but Jesus Christ.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_of_Assisi

 

[DarkLight]

Agreed. I feel there’s a tendency for traditional catholics to mix cultural attitudes about women and catholicism.

We can’t act as if Mary will faint at the thought of assertive women who prefer engineering over being a SAHM.

Honestly, the problem with the whole SAHM debate is that people forget how modern a concept it is. The whole major division between “home” and “work” is, at most, the mid 1800’s. Prior to that most people either worked on farms, where everyone contributed, or in small shops where they lived above or behind the shop, and again everyone helped out.

 

[pensmama87]

Honestly, the problem with the whole SAHM debate is that people forget how modern a concept it is. The whole major division between “home” and “work” is, at most, the mid 1800’s. Prior to that most people either worked on farms, where everyone contributed, or in small shops where they lived above or behind the shop, and again everyone helped out.

Yes, this gets me a lot, too.

I can get that, due to the features of childbearing and rearing, especially the very young, that women may have stayed closer to home, but for most of human history men have stayed close too. The exceptions are wartime or other major strife, and the very wealthy.

And parenthood was also very much a community endeavor, not something you did alone without any help. If you couldn’t afford help, you had multiple generations in the home or cousins or neighbors next door who could take over the practical tasks. That’s the positive aspect of “it takes a village,” and it’s not the same as wanting a nanny state.

 

[SusanneT]

I don’t think it is a question of physical proximity so much as one of priorities.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t think it is a question of physical proximity so much as one of priorities.

That’s a bit hard to judge, don’t you think?

For example, a woman might (arguably) say that she is prioritizing her children by working hard at a professional job so that she can afford boarding school.