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

[pensmama87]

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

This would go for both moms and dads though, don’t you think?

I think it’s a mistake that some traditional circles have focused on the role of married men as “provider” to almost the total exclusion of their roles as “husband” and “father.” They’re not synonymous.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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

You’re telling me you aren’t so socially clueless as to go to a wine tasting and start complaining about the dangers of alcoholism and how it’s impacted your life?

 

[SusanneT]

This would go for both moms and dads though, don’t you think?

I think it’s a mistake that some traditional circles have focused on the role of married men as “provider” to almost the total exclusion of their roles as “husband” and “father.” They’re not synonymous.

I would agree with that but I still believe that there is a distinction between the roles which feminists do not accept.

 

[DarkLight]

You’re telling me you aren’t so socially clueless as to go to a wine tasting and start complaining about the dangers of alcoholism and how it’s impacted your life?

Now now, we’re not baptists here…

 

[pensmama87]

I would agree with that but I still believe that there is a distinction between the roles which feminists do not accept.

It depends on the specific group of feminists - not all would say that sex and gender is meaningless, though the ones that do (or at least their ideas) get a lot of airtime these days. Feminism is not monolithic.

And I don’t think anyone on this thread thinks that men and women are interchangeable. I certainly don’t. I don’t consider myself a feminist anymore, but there was a reason that feminism attracted me when I was a teen and in my early 20s, and those reasons still exist.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I am happy to see this topic has actually lurched back towards the original intent as opposed to an anti-Red-Piller one (at one point, there were even tags on it about “red pill idiocy” and I was about to report them, when they got deleted).

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.

Well, much of the discussion in this topic has come from those who claim to support “traditional” gender roles yet do not discuss anything about what the Church actually teaches.

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.

Let’s add Gianna Molla, too. A practicing physician who even gasp wore pants! And she didn’t “have” to work, either, her husband was wealthy. Now of course some “traditionalists” claim “St. Gianna was canonized because she sacrificed herself for her daughter, but that doesn’t mean she never sinned or never did anything wrong” and imply she was canonized despite her sins and must have gone through Purgatory, I’ve even read a claim that St. Gianna was planning on becoming a SAHM if she survived her last pregnancy, and that she wouldn’t have qualified for sainthood otherwise.

I think it’s a mistake that some traditional circles have focused on the role of married men as “provider” to almost the total exclusion of their roles as “husband” and “father.” They’re not synonymous.

And ironically, if all a man is good for is a child support check, why does he have to be married to the mother, or even have any relationship at all with his children? Indeed, if Uncle Sam can take over the role of sending the checks, then the man isn’t needed at all.

We see the fruit of that kind of thinking in the many inner city families where single motherhood is the norm, and even a man who bothers to be involved with his kids at all is a “mighty good man” (per the Salt and Pepa song that mentions her lover “Spends quality time with his kids when he can”). I got the impression “quality time” means a couple times a month, but that’s all that can be expected of a man these days, isn’t it?

It depends on the specific group of feminists - not all would say that sex and gender is meaningless, though the ones that do (or at least their ideas) get a lot of airtime these days. Feminism is not monolithic.

I agree, and I am curious to see if anyone thinks feminism is actually compatible with Catholic teaching. Not fundamentalist evangelical teaching, or traditional gender roles in countries (such as the Philippines, other Asian countries, India, Africa, etc.) where Christianity had nothing to do with the formation of those roles.

 

[pensmama87]

I agree, and I am curious to see if anyone thinks feminism is actually compatible with Catholic teaching. Not fundamentalist evangelical teaching, or traditional gender roles in countries (such as the Philippines, other Asian countries, India, Africa, etc.) where Christianity had nothing to do with the formation of those roles.

I think if you look at the early suffragists, at least in the United States, then yes (I’m not as familiar with the development of feminism in other countries, though there are parallels.) They were closely tied to Prohibition, which gets mocked now because it was a disaster, but the effects of widespread alcohol use in the US were devastating to family life in the 1800s, and there was very little that protected women and children.

I have friends who are involved in pro-life feminist groups who are practicing Catholics, like New Wave Feminists. I think their approach is a good one and it gets people thinking. I’m not comfortable with the label myself, but from what I’ve seen of the work that they do, I approve.

The important thing for me, is that I’m Catholic first. So if I admire a movement or get involved, and that movement starts veering, I need to keep myself in check to stay with the Church, not try to adjust the Church to fit the movement.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think if you look at the early suffragists, at least in the United States, then yes (I’m not as familiar with the development of feminism in other countries, though there are parallels.) They were closely tied to Prohibition, which gets mocked now because it was a disaster, but the effects of widespread alcohol use in the US were devastating to family life in the 1800s, and there was very little that protected women and children.

I think that to many anti-feminists, the term “Feminist” has become so corrupted by the modern political manifestations of the concept, that the term is just not salvageable, and so it is scandalous to claim to be a feminist even with caveats that “I’m pro-life like Susan B. Anthony was” or “I think women have the right to decide NOT to work for pay and devote themselves to being wives and mothers if they want”.

Much as many on CAF find it scandalous as best, sinful at worst for anyone to claim to be a “Chaste gay/homosexual”, and push them to identify as “straight person afflicted with SSA” because “gay” has become so corrupted by the modern political manifestations of the concept, that the term is just not salvageable.

 

[DarkLight]

I think if you look at the early suffragists, at least in the United States, then yes (I’m not as familiar with the development of feminism in other countries, though there are parallels.) They were closely tied to Prohibition, which gets mocked now because it was a disaster, but the effects of widespread alcohol use in the US were devastating to family life in the 1800s, and there was very little that protected women and children.

I have friends who are involved in pro-life feminist groups who are practicing Catholics, like New Wave Feminists. I think their approach is a good one and it gets people thinking. I’m not comfortable with the label myself, but from what I’ve seen of the work that they do, I approve.

The important thing for me, is that I’m Catholic first. So if I admire a movement or get involved, and that movement starts veering, I need to keep myself in check to stay with the Church, not try to adjust the Church to fit the movement.

I think part of my issue is that there often is a knee-jerk reaction that we can’t have anything “feminist/modern/worldly/etc” in our teaching. The problem is that we get to a point where, if feminism is bad, and feminists say something, they must be wrong. Or we can’t do anything that might possibly point to a more liberal way of thinking. There’s also the annoying tendency people have to assign a side to a statement and then respond to it as if it were a representation of what’s seen as the typical view of that side.

I think this shows up in some of the modesty arguments. I think if people stopped and thought, my statement that “there are men who will target a woman inappropriately, even if she is modestly dressed, because they don’t respect women” is pretty obvious. But it’s generated a surprising amount of controversy. A lot is because people see that and assume I’m trying to say “we shouldn’t care about modesty” or “modesty doesn’t affect how people see you” or something. But I’ve met people who would say things like, we can’t talk about that, because our culture pushes immodesty and young ladies might get the idea that it’s ok to be immodest.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

There’s also the annoying tendency people have to assign a side to a statement and then respond to it as if it were a representation of what’s seen as the typical view of that side.

Annoying, and IMHO lazy. Of course, SOP in political discussion these days, sadly. I’ve skipped over most of the “Partisans not bothering to respond to the actual argument but just throwing around general talking points hoping they stick” part of this discussion.

Reminds me of the complaints about CAF Docents replying to “Ask an Apologist” questions by merely providing a list of links to prior answers to similar questions; sometimes the same question had indeed been asked before, but at other times the past questions was only vaguely related to the new one.

I think this shows up in some of the modesty arguments. I think if people stopped and thought, my statement that “there are men who will target a woman inappropriately, even if she is modestly dressed, because they don’t respect women” is pretty obvious. But it’s generated a surprising amount of controversy. A lot is because people see that and assume I’m trying to say “we shouldn’t care about modesty” or “modesty doesn’t affect how people see you” or something.

I avoid most CAF modesty discussions because they usually degenerate by the 2nd or 3rd page into: “So you’re suggesting all women walk around in burkas?” versus “So you’re suggesting all women walk around stark naked?” And then they get locked and/or deleted.

 

[pensmama87]

I think part of my issue is that there often is a knee-jerk reaction that we can’t have anything “feminist/modern/worldly/etc” in our teaching. The problem is that we get to a point where, if feminism is bad, and feminists say something, they must be wrong. Or we can’t do anything that might possibly point to a more liberal way of thinking. There’s also the annoying tendency people have to assign a side to a statement and then respond to it as if it were a representation of what’s seen as the typical view of that side.

I think this shows up in some of the modesty arguments. I think if people stopped and thought, my statement that “there are men who will target a woman inappropriately, even if she is modestly dressed, because they don’t respect women” is pretty obvious. But it’s generated a surprising amount of controversy. A lot is because people see that and assume I’m trying to say “we shouldn’t care about modesty” or “modesty doesn’t affect how people see you” or something. But I’ve met people who would say things like, we can’t talk about that, because our culture pushes immodesty and young ladies might get the idea that it’s ok to be immodest.

What surprises me about this, though maybe it shouldn’t especially in the US, is that this seems so opposed to Catholicism. We’ve adopted the good out of tons of cultures throughout our history while rejecting the bad. Why wouldn’t we, you know, just keep doing that?

 

[DarkLight]

I avoid most CAF modesty discussions because they usually degenerate by the 2nd or 3rd page into: “So you’re suggesting all women walk around in burkas?” versus “So you’re suggesting all women walk around stark naked?” And then they get locked and/or deleted.

I’ll be honest, I’d love to find somewhere that has a good, sane, reasoned discussion about the principles behind modesty. Most online Catholic forums don’t seem like likely places to have that discussion. (Although I’ve found it works a bit better if you restrict to ladies only, or strongly suggest that restriction?) A lot of us got teaching where it was assumed modesty was a virtue, but really didn’t get into a whole lot of why beyond a bunch of stuff about how visual men are and some vague comments about self-respect. And it just didn’t function out in the world the way we were taught.

 

[Lea101]

I’ll be honest, I’d love to find somewhere that has a good, sane, reasoned discussion about the principles behind modesty. Most online Catholic forums don’t seem like likely places to have that discussion. (Although I’ve found it works a bit better if you restrict to ladies only, or strongly suggest that restriction?) A lot of us got teaching where it was assumed modesty was a virtue, but really didn’t get into a whole lot of why beyond a bunch of stuff about how visual men are and some vague comments about self-respect. And it just didn’t function out in the world the way we were taught.

Honestly, the best talks about modesty are usually from young women. (I feel like men and older women-not the age, it’s just that they are more likely to be conservative and traditional-tend to portray men as uncontrollable beasts and/or resort to using fake science) But even then I just don’t feel like they’ve nailed it. Or maybe I’m just not convinced. I think it’s also harder when we don’t have proper guidelines, but that’s a topic for another day.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What surprises me about this, though maybe it shouldn’t especially in the US, is that this seems so opposed to Catholicism. We’ve adopted the good out of tons of cultures throughout our history while rejecting the bad. Why wouldn’t we, you know, just keep doing that?

While I don’t want to speculate about other countries, I have noticed that many US posters on CAF seem very influenced by the fundamentalist non-Catholic Christians. I always found the praises of the Duggars by Catholics to be very ironic, since the Duggars are actually very anti-Catholic; though JB seems savvy enough not to make it too public, it’s actually the son-in-laws who have made their negative sentiments about Catholics public, but doubt they’d have done it if they thought it would upset him.

I wonder if this is the case because most of the posters (though there are many notable exceptions) identify as “politically conservative” or “socially conservative” and most of the politically active “social conservatives” hail NOT from a Catholic but from a fundamentalist, or at least evangelical, background. Perhaps the political alliances many Catholics have made with such non-Catholics, have resulted in some “contamination” of Catholic thought by fundamentalism.

I’ve noticed many on CAF proudly state they “interpret Scripture literally” and espouse beliefs such as Young Earth Creationism that, while not technically “against Church teaching” isn’t “official Church teaching” either and the same when it comes to discussions about the role of women.

I’ve also noticed many “conservatives” on CAF use the technique of compiling quotes from saints to support their position, some even just post quotes and expect others to just read them and interpret them literally without any consideration for the times they were written in.

I also realize many on CAF are actually converts who may have left behind much of the “official” teachings from the pulpit from fundamentalist churches, but not the unspoken assumptions about the role of women.

I’ll be honest, I’d love to find somewhere that has a good, sane, reasoned discussion about the principles behind modesty. Most online Catholic forums don’t seem like likely places to have that discussion. (Although I’ve found it works a bit better if you restrict to ladies only, or strongly suggest that restriction?) A lot of us got teaching where it was assumed modesty was a virtue, but really didn’t get into a whole lot of why beyond a bunch of stuff about how visual men are and some vague comments about self-respect. And it just didn’t function out in the world the way we were taught.

I recall one actual helpful CAF topic in the last year about practical modesty tips, link to modesty fashion blogs, photos, etc. I can’t find it now, though I tried the Search function.

 

[DarkLight]

Honestly, the best talks about modesty are usually from young women. (I feel like men and older women-not the age, it’s just that they are more likely to be conservative and traditional-tend to portray men as uncontrollable beasts and/or resort to using fake science) But even then I just don’t feel like they’ve nailed it. Or maybe I’m just not convinced. I think it’s also harder when we don’t have proper guidelines, but that’s a topic for another day.

I’ve honestly had better luck just extrapolating from women talking about fashion in the workplace. Most workplaces are still an arena where we expect sex to be downplayed, for both sexes. So if a certain fit/coverage is acceptable in a business casual workplace, it’s probably considered suitable.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’ve honestly had better luck just extrapolating from women talking about fashion in the workplace. Most workplaces are still an arena where we expect sex to be downplayed, for both sexes. So if a certain fit/coverage is acceptable in a business casual workplace, it’s probably considered suitable.

My mother taught me to dress modestly and the main reason I actually listened is because she never took the route of “you need to dress modestly to avoid leading those poor helpless men into sin, because men are visual creatures and can’t control their sexual urges”.

What she DID emphasize was the idea of treating myself with respect, and respecting the body God gave me, and how some of my parts are private and should not be displayed to the public – again, not because that would make helpless sex-crazed men sin, but because that would be disrespecting myself.

She also expressed distaste for men who walk around with their pants hanging down and their underwear, or worse, showing. Not because she thought that would lead others into sin, but just because she saw it as showing disrespect for themselves.

 

[SuperLuigi]

(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.

On reddit, maybe. But otherwise, most red pill folks (some are women) are egalitarian.

Do you really think Laci Green wants patriarchy?

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

All of which violate the First Amendment.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

Xantippe: respectfully, that is a nonsensical answer.

How do you expect anyone to take your arguments or your advice seriously if you’re going to put something like feminism as a sacred cow?

 

[SuperLuigi]

My mother taught me to dress modestly and the main reason I actually listened is because she never took the route of “you need to dress modestly to avoid leading those poor helpless men into sin, because men are visual creatures and can’t control their sexual urges”.

What she DID emphasize was the idea of treating myself with respect, and respecting the body God gave me, and how some of my parts are private and should not be displayed to the public – again, not because that would make helpless sex-crazed men sin, but because that would be disrespecting myself.

She also expressed distaste for men who walk around with their pants hanging down and their underwear, or worse, showing. Not because she thought that would lead others into sin, but just because she saw it as showing disrespect for themselves.

The issue of how to dress for me always comes back to the government telling us how to dress.

Most people in the West dress probably according to the weather or their work more than anything by far, but a priest once noted that if a woman goes to communion (I would say men to be all egalitarian…but…) with everything falling out, the Eucharistic ministers notice and it’s really not comfortable for them.

Dressing inappropriately may cause scandal depending on the intention.