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

[DarkLight]

I will say that you must mean you wish Christianity would have taught you more about real feminism, not the bad fruits of radical “feminism.” That kind of so called “feminism” has had a bad name, and rightly so. I don’t defend it at all. Women I know who used to be radical “feminists” have said how they’ve turned from it once their eyes were opened and they could see how warped and unhealthy it really is. I know trying to say that women should be like Mary doesn’t “work” in our current day and age, but really it’s the truth. And I don’t think of Mary as being a mousy little doormat. I think of Her better than that, as being ladylike yet strong of mind and heart. The man/ woman relationship was never meant to be competitive. There is no “equality” as long as there is competition. When God created the Man from the dust of the earth, He saw it was “not good for him to be alone,” so He took the rib and formed the Woman, and they were designed to work alongside eachother, not against eachother, and together they were one. One flesh, complementary to eachother, equal. I know, I know, a woman is independent of a man, she was not created for man, and blah, blah, blah. But I’m not talking about our current age, I’m just saying how the man/ woman relationship was originally designed to be. Everything was perfect and beautiful, until sin ruined and uglified all of that.

The thing with “be like Mary” is I think we do still have to interpret that somewhat in a modern context. For an obvious example, Mary would never have shown up anywhere in what I wore to work today - a short-sleeved blouse, dress pants, and flats. Horribly scandalous if I was walking around first century palestine, pretty much normal women’s business casual around here. But I have heard the argument that since Mary wouldn’t have worn pants, or short sleeves, we shouldn’t either. Not that we shouldn’t hold her up as a role model, but that sometimes we do have to think how things should be applied to our own culture.

I definitely appreciate your point about feminism. And I think people downplay some of what it was like beforehand. My mother told me a story about being in graduate school in the sciences in the 80’s. Apparently one professor would accuse any female student who did well of cheating. In his mind women couldn’t possibly be that good at math. That sort of thing wasn’t really acceptable even then - you certainly couldn’t get away with it now, and that’s a good thing.

 

[MaryT777]

I’ve said it before, but I think it bears repeating: as you say, Mary was not a mousy little doormat.

We’re talking about a young mother who left her home and family and country in order to protect her son in a time and place which was not at all kind to people who “weren’t from around here,” much less refugees.

In Nazareth, Joseph had a carpentry business. Since he was a saint, he was presumably honest in his dealings and did good work for the people who hired him, and so he’d have been able to make a decent living via repeat customers and word-of-mouth. (“Need a new house? Oh, you’ll want to talk to Joseph. Four streets over, third house on the left. Nice guy, built my brother a stable ten years ago that’s still standing.”) In Bethlehem, he would have at least had family connections to help him get day labor work. Egypt? Very unlikely. Very, very unlikely. It’s far more likely that Our Lady had to work as well as care for her Child in order to help Joseph put food on the table, at least during their Egypt stay. Oh, and she probably didn’t even speak the local language, which was Coptic back then.

A fragile flower type wouldn’t have lasted very long in those conditions, or born up under them with the grace I assume Mary showed in such trying circumstances. If you (general, not specific “you”) think for just a moment of how hard you’d have to work to survive in a place where you had no friends or family, no common language with most of the population, no easy way of getting a job, I think that would frame Marian femininity in a whole new light from the more traditional image of Mary sitting in a nice upper-middle-class house and bending gently over Baby Jesus’ cradle whilst doing a spot of embroidery.

Awesome post!~

 

[Xantippe]

The thing with “be like Mary” is I think we do still have to interpret that somewhat in a modern context. For an obvious example, Mary would never have shown up anywhere in what I wore to work today - a short-sleeved blouse, dress pants, and flats. Horribly scandalous if I was walking around first century palestine, pretty much normal women’s business casual around here. But I have heard the argument that since Mary wouldn’t have worn pants, or short sleeves, we shouldn’t either. Not that we shouldn’t hold her up as a role model, but that sometimes we do have to think how things should be applied to our own culture.

Another issue with “be like Mary” is that we’re dealing with very limited Biblical data. A lot of the “be like Mary” stuff is just guess-work. We have, for example, no idea of what the Blessed Virgin Mary’s daily schedule looked like, what kind of relationships she had with her extended family, whether she was literate, etc.

 

[Lea101]

One flesh, complementary to eachother, equal. I know, I know, a woman is independent of a man, she was not created for man, and blah, blah, blah. But I’m not talking about our current age, I’m just saying how the man/ woman relationship was originally designed to be. Everything was perfect and beautiful, until sin ruined and uglified all of that.

Well honestly, your signature basically shows why women flock to feminism instead of christianity, because feminism insists that woman is not created for anyone, that woman wasn’t made to keep man company (which is contrary to Christianity, or at least, a lot of Christians). This belief then encouraged women to be whoever they want to be without being held back by stereotypes. But when they see bible verses like that…with wishy washy interpretations…

 

[Lea101]

The thing with “be like Mary” is I think we do still have to interpret that somewhat in a modern context. For an obvious example, Mary would never have shown up anywhere in what I wore to work today - a short-sleeved blouse, dress pants, and flats. Horribly scandalous if I was walking around first century palestine, pretty much normal women’s business casual around here. But I have heard the argument that since Mary wouldn’t have worn pants, or short sleeves, we shouldn’t either. Not that we shouldn’t hold her up as a role model, but that sometimes we do have to think how things should be applied to our own culture.

Exactly.

We don’t have much information about Mary’s personality. We roughly know what she did (eg carrying Jesus, praying for others, going to Egypt) and we try to form her personality based on that. But we don’t even do that to other people. If we knew the same amount of information about someone else, we wouldn’t really assume his or her personality.

What irks me is that people form Mary’s personality based on her sinless nature. Some say that Mary is a reserved/docile/etc woman because she “pondered in her heart”, as if that tells us everything about her. It also wouldn’t be wrong if she was quite a loud and cheerful person who isn’t afraid of letting her opinions be known. It doesn’t contradict her sinless nature. There is this assumption that Mary is the epitome of their idea of femininity. Or if Mary has trait A instead of its opposite, trait B, that means that B is wrong because if it wasn’t, Mary would have trait B as well.

It is frustrating for women who has traits like B.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

What I mean by to “be like Mary” is only that She was a woman of quiet strength. She wasn’t loud, bold, or rebellious, which, of course, wasn’t the way to be in Her day. As for the “woman created for man,” I’m not meaning that for our current age. It’s only a reflection on the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, and actually I find it to be beautiful. It doesn’t mean I really think all women were only created for men. I’m only reflecting on the first Man and the first Woman, when it was just the two of them alone together, before any others. It’s only a reflection on how that first Woman was created for the Man.

 

[Lea101]

What I mean by to “be like Mary” is only that She was a woman of quiet strength. She wasn’t loud, bold, or rebellious, which, of course, wasn’t the way to be in Her day. As for the “woman created for man,” I’m not meaning that for our current age. It’s only a reflection on the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, and actually I find it to be beautiful. It doesn’t mean I really think all women were only created for men. I’m only reflecting on the first Man and the first Woman, when it was just the two of them alone together, before any others. It’s only a reflection on how that first Woman was created for the Man.

Being a woman of quiet strength is a great thing but I don’t think we must all be like that. Nothing wrong with loud and bold women (not rebellious, unless she is rebelling against sin). That’s my point. Any disagreement would be a matter of preference (eg I don’t like to spend time with loud women, but that doesn’t mean I would want them to change, their attitude can be actually quite useful in getting things done in society)

And for the second part, yes I know what you mean and it would make sense to agree with you since it’s a fact that Eve was created for him. I’m just saying that not everyone thinks that and it shows

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Being a woman of quiet strength is a great thing but I don’t think we must all be like that. Nothing wrong with loud and bold women (not rebellious, unless she is rebelling against sin). That’s my point. Any disagreement would be a matter of preference (eg I don’t like to spend time with loud women, but that doesn’t mean I would want them to change, their attitude can be actually quite useful in getting things done in society)

And for the second part, yes I know what you mean and it would make sense to agree with you since it’s a fact that Eve was created for him. I’m just saying that not everyone thinks that and it shows

That’s all right. I see your take on it too and understand. And you’re right that it shows.
I will add that, while I’ve described Mary as being “quiet”, I’m probably more of a “bold” woman. I’m passionate (as in wanting to fight for what is right) and I admire a woman who has pizazz and isn’t a mousy little doormat. Again, I mean that my kind of woman is a woman with passion and pizazz for what is right. Sometimes I think we’re a little too nice.

 

[pensmama87]

Being a woman of quiet strength is a great thing but I don’t think we must all be like that. Nothing wrong with loud and bold women (not rebellious, unless she is rebelling against sin). That’s my point. Any disagreement would be a matter of preference (eg I don’t like to spend time with loud women, but that doesn’t mean I would want them to change, their attitude can be actually quite useful in getting things done in society)

And for the second part, yes I know what you mean and it would make sense to agree with you since it’s a fact that Eve was created for him. I’m just saying that not everyone thinks that and it shows

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

Yes.

 

[LightBound]

The thing with “be like Mary” is I think we do still have to interpret that somewhat in a modern context. For an obvious example, Mary would never have shown up anywhere in what I wore to work today - a short-sleeved blouse, dress pants, and flats. Horribly scandalous if I was walking around first century palestine, pretty much normal women’s business casual around here. **But I have heard the argument that since Mary wouldn’t have worn pants, or short sleeves, we shouldn’t either. ** Not that we shouldn’t hold her up as a role model, but that sometimes we do have to think how things should be applied to our own culture.

I definitely appreciate your point about feminism. And I think people downplay some of what it was like beforehand. My mother told me a story about being in graduate school in the sciences in the 80’s. Apparently one professor would accuse any female student who did well of cheating. In his mind women couldn’t possibly be that good at math. That sort of thing wasn’t really acceptable even then - you certainly couldn’t get away with it now, and that’s a good thing.

Some thoughts from Brother Jay on what Mary might have worn if she was living her earthly time in a time and place other than 1st Century Palestine.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10499776&postcount=24

 

[MaryT777]

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

This is spot on and well said;

 

[DarkLight]

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

Definitely. Where I grew up the ideal was for a man to be a pastor or missionary, and for his wife to be a stay-at-home mother (which often really meant “unpaid church helper”).

 

[ToeInTheWater]

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

And sadly, some Catholic Christian circles as well. A perusal of the Spirituality forum often reveals those who think “Devotion X has brought me great graces, so every single Catholic should also practice Devotion X”.

I do get the feeling some US Catholics have certainly subconsciously accepted a fundamentalist mindset when it comes to gender roles. Some even go as far as to state saints such as Joan of Arc and Gianna Molla were canonized despite their lives involving stepping out of a traditional role for women, and make a point of stating “just because someone is a Saint doesn’t mean everything they did should be emulated”.

I suppose that if I were to ask “so did they have to go through Purgatory before going to heaven” they would state “obviously”.

It also seems that many Catholics in Asian countries have an understanding of gender roles that is more about their traditional cultural norms than actual Church teaching.

 

[pensmama87]

And sadly, some Catholic Christian circles as well. A perusal of the Spirituality forum often reveals those who think “Devotion X has brought me great graces, so every single Catholic should also practice Devotion X”.

I do get the feeling some US Catholics have certainly subconsciously accepted a fundamentalist mindset when it comes to gender roles. Some even go as far as to state saints such as Joan of Arc and Gianna Molla were canonized despite their lives involving stepping out of a traditional role for women, and make a point of stating “just because someone is a Saint doesn’t mean everything they did should be emulated”.

I suppose that if I were to ask “so did they have to go through Purgatory before going to heaven” they would state “obviously”.

It also seems that many Catholics in Asian countries have an understanding of gender roles that is more about their traditional cultural norms than actual Church teaching.

Well, I don’t think it’s that unusual. When you find a hammer, it becomes easy to think every problem is a nail, whether you’re a feminist or a rad trad or whatever. And it’s a very natural human impulse to twist things to suit our particular quirks and pet sins and to simplify everything. Ideology is attractive because it provides a convenient narrative when life is considerably messier than that. That doesn’t mean that Truth isn’t real or there isn’t right or wrong, but yeah, if you find yourself thinking that everybody else is totally screwed up and you’re the only one who’s figured everything out, it’s probably time for a good hard look in the mirror.

 

[Estevao]

For me it boils down to what counts as feminism. Often times it seems as if there is no definition to work with. It’s whatever some self-professed feminist asserts it is. Or it’s some silly platitude like “feminism means equality” like you see globalist shills like the professional line reader Emma Watson saying on the Ellen show at some UN meeting or whatever.

However there is a certain implication when you adhere to that ideology and call yourself a feminist. You take on its thought baggage. Otherwise you better come up with some new term to refer to your beliefs as.

Xantippe made reference in earlier threads to the Church grappling with Plato and Aristotle. Well if you have to go to the official pall-bearers of feminism like the Church went to the official pall-bearers of paganism, you have to start with one of the first feminists, Friedrich Engels, and his book The Origins of the Family, which asserted a very common feminist principle, that marriage is oppressive to women and was imposed on them by the patriarchy. From then you might move onto Sanger, Freud, Mead, Kinsey and Friedan, who all shaped the feminist movement and its roommate, the sexual revolution. You can’t just say that these thinkers “aren’t real feminists” because if I ask a lot of my secular feminist acquaintances, they would surely accept some of their positions and put it under the bar of ‘feminism’.

The thing with Plato and Aristotle however are that, I think it’s a good bet that if they had lived after the coming of Christ, they would have been devout Catholics like Aquinas. Yet there is no way that the characters listed above would have been like that. Sure you can call them “nuts” but there is no denying their influence.

 

[DarkLight]

What I worry about in a lot of conservative Christian circles is “well that’s a feminist concept” ends up becoming a complete refutation of an argument. Like it or not, concepts such as “date rape” or robust conversations about “consent” have become associated with feminism, and whether you want to be identified with the term or not you’d better believe if you’re talking about the idea people are going to consider you affiliated with feminism.

 

[Xantippe]

What I worry about in a lot of conservative Christian circles is “well that’s a feminist concept” ends up becoming a complete refutation of an argument. Like it or not, concepts such as “date rape” or robust conversations about “consent” have become associated with feminism, and whether you want to be identified with the term or not you’d better believe if you’re talking about the idea people are going to consider you affiliated with feminism.

Thinking consent is important doesn’t make you a radical feminist any more than liking nice roads makes you a Nazi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsautobahn

 

[Estevao]

Yes a robust conversation about consent is important. I grate at the idea when I hear it though. It seems to presume that women (in particular) are cartesian robots who actually operate in a “yes or no” world like a computer program when it comes to romantic propositions. I’m sure some are very up front, but some like the chase, and yet according to most feminist talk I hear, not getting an ‘enthusiastic yes’ every 2 minutes is somehow ‘rape’ (boy do they like to throw that word around!). And this is the idea that gets taught as dogma at every single western college to impressionable youngsters.

For instance I often wonder if a song like this is rape culture:

youtube.com/watch?v=zFFXQt7HwPA
"Holly Dunn:

When you asked me out and I turned you down,
Never thought that’d stop you from askin’ now
Why’d you go and give up so easily?
I thought you’d see…
When I say no I mean maybe
Baby don’t you know me yet?
Nothin’s worth havin’ if it ain’t a little hard to get
So let me clarify so you won’t have to try to guess
When I say no I mean maybe, or maybe I mean yes
Ever since woman has talked to man, Every man’s been tryin’
to understand. What’s the harm in a little mystery?
That’s how it should be

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

Thank you for this. For me it finally put the finger on why I was so uncomfortable in the evangelical outfit I attended for a year in 2011. Other than the theological considerations…

 

[Xantippe]

For me it boils down to what counts as feminism. Often times it seems as if there is no definition to work with. It’s whatever some self-professed feminist asserts it is. Or it’s some silly platitude like “feminism means equality” like you see globalist shills like the professional line reader Emma Watson saying on the Ellen show at some UN meeting or whatever.

However there is a certain implication when you adhere to that ideology and call yourself a feminist. You take on its thought baggage. Otherwise you better come up with some new term to refer to your beliefs as.

Xantippe made reference in earlier threads to the Church grappling with Plato and Aristotle. Well if you have to go to the official pall-bearers of feminism like the Church went to the official pall-bearers of paganism, you have to start with one of the first feminists, Friedrich Engels, and his book The Origins of the Family, which asserted a very common feminist principle, that marriage is oppressive to women and was imposed on them by the patriarchy. From then you might move onto Sanger, Freud, Mead, Kinsey and Friedan, who all shaped the feminist movement and its roommate, the sexual revolution. You can’t just say that these thinkers “aren’t real feminists” because if I ask a lot of my secular feminist acquaintances, they would surely accept some of their positions and put it under the bar of ‘feminism’.

The thing with Plato and Aristotle however are that, I think it’s a good bet that if they had lived after the coming of Christ, they would have been devout Catholics like Aquinas. Yet there is no way that the characters listed above would have been like that. Sure you can call them “nuts” but there is no denying their influence.

We’re talking about a very diffuse historical movement, or series of movements.

It’s difficult enough with something like conservatism. I’ve been a conservative my whole life and every so often I encounter a member of “the family” that makes me think–who are you, where are you from, and what could we possibly have in common? (This has happened a lot the last couple years.) I would need to narrow it down to get a sense of who my “immediate family” is. For myself politically, that might mean kinship with people who value individual rights (freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religious practice, etc.), private property ownership, subsidiarity, the value of vibrant voluntary organizations, the rule of law rather than of charismatic personalities, the government refraining from playing favorites with industries or companies, public order, checks and balances, etc. You’ll notice that a number of those categories are going to infringe on each other, and it’s quite the mouthful…

I can’t help but notice that a lot of the newer sort of internet right people don’t seem very keen on a lot of those concepts.

“The thing with Plato and Aristotle however are that, I think it’s a good bet that if they had lived after the coming of Christ, they would have been devout Catholics like Aquinas.”

I grant that if they’d lived within the Christian era, they would have been Christians, but at the same time, I think that if they lived at the time of St. Paul, it’s quite likely that they would have died pagans. Even St. Augustine (died 430 AD) took his own sweet time converting to Christianity, and he’d had a Christian mother and had lived his whole life with Christianity being legal in the Roman Empire. Even his mother had been born after the legalization of Christianity.

I am not familiar with the biographies of all of the 19th/20th century characters you mention, but with regard to Margaret Sanger, this bit from Wikipedia sounds like it explains a lot:

“Anne Higgins [Sanger’s mother] went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49. Sanger was the sixth of eleven surviving children, and spent much of her youth assisting with household chores and caring for her younger siblings.”