True Feminism

[Elijah_Baley]

I’m a man. Please ignore me if it suits your dogma, but I think I have something to say.

The trouble with any feminism is that it defines what femininity should be for everyone. Dogmatic males preaching the virtue of motherhood to exclusion has given way to dogmatic feminists preaching the vice of motherhood to exclusion. This makes me think that one scene in that movie Mona Lisa Smile, where the teacher can’t get over that one of her students has chosen the domestic life. Really?

There should be the choice and flexibility to chose career over being a homemaker and vice versa. Feminism cannot be valid unless it represents solely that free choice. It cannot force the worst aspects of men onto women who choose a career and retain any cachet.

The proper role of feminism is to discover how it is possible to pursue a career while retaining uniquely female virtue, i.e. motherhood, without suppressing it. Motherhood is not necessarily male oppression because it is inherently female, not to mention vital to the preservation of mankind.

If by feminism we mean sterility and career necessarily over motherhood and the home, we have a false ideology and should discourage it. If by feminism we mean the choice to choose career over the home, without denigrating the virtue of motherhood, then of course we have something very praiseworthy.

Everyone’s been saying a little truth. This is my attempt to bind it together. Please don’t ignore it just because I’m a man.

 

[Kaninchen]

The trouble with any feminism is that it defines what femininity should be for everyone.

What, exactly, do you mean by ‘femininity’? Do you mean something like ‘being female’? Or do you mean a set of behaviours, clothes and make-up? If you mean ‘being female’, say so because ‘femininity’ is a term more about presentation.

In what sense does ‘feminism’ define these things?

Dogmatic males preaching the virtue of motherhood to exclusion has given way to dogmatic feminists preaching the vice of motherhood to exclusion.

Really? Which dogmatic feminists are preaching motherhood as a vice? There may be the odd lesbian feminist who may think so but in what sense are they in a position to be generally heard, never mind be influential?

The proper role of feminism is to discover how it is possible to pursue a career while retaining uniquely female virtue, i.e. motherhood, without suppressing it. Motherhood is not necessarily male oppression because it is inherently female, not to mention vital to the preservation of mankind.

The proper role of feminism is to dis-cover (that’s an old radical feminist usage, by the way, it suggests that something has been covered on purpose) and understand the experience of being female, from a female perspective.

Everyone’s been saying a little truth. This is my attempt to bind it together. Please don’t ignore it just because I’m a man.

Even I’m enough of a feminist to say that you’re free to say anything, just not to define.

 

[edwest2]

First of all, change for the sake of change is not always good. The radical feminists of the 1970s made it a point to work from the Marxist script: create a Victim class - Women, and an Enemy class - Men. Make certain to yell that the family “is a comfortable concentration camp.” At the end of the day, it’s all about power, real and perceived. If little Martha can’t grow up to be a fat, cigar smoking executive then she’s being discriminated against. All men are secretly plotting to keep her away from playing the power game. So, they’ve conditioned her to believe her only real value is producing babies. Sad. Very sad.

Today, some little Marthas are conditioned to follow the Sex and the City script - they will be female chauvenist pigs, treat men like sex objects and buy and do nice things for themselves.

Some feminists yelled that they will not be slaves to their biology - what, before they were born some men plotted for them to be born female?

The feminists were not solution oriented. They created two warring camps. That was the goal. Divide and separate, with no chance for healing. How to pass the time? Take Women’s Studies and Women’s Literature in college. Become a political lesbian.

The answer is simple, and I’ve seen it in action: men will be men and women will be women. And for those who choose not to accept their biology, just stay away from each other. For Catholics, the foundation of maleness and femaleness is clearly spelled out. Being born in the mid-1950s, nobody had The Pill and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two, not ten. Whenever I hear the media quote somebody about what they think “feminism” means today, it’s always about kids.

And all they say is that there are too many people. Really? We are heading to below replacement in the West. But that is a good thing, right? We are fulfilling the social programming that tells us to have lots of sex but no kids. Kids are messy and time consuming, let’s just live lives of pleasure. I get tired of you, or you get tired of me? Fine. Just pack your bags and leave.

In the Radical Individualism that some love is nothing permanent, just selecting fellow human beings like products on the shelf along with other products on the shelf. Once the individual’s needs are met, other things are selected to pass the time.

True love and true commitment are growing today. True love of God, family and community. Couples home schooling their children in the midst of rampant dysfunctionality in the culture, in the midst of social engineering projects and anti-family propaganda.

True feminism is a community, not radical individualism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Elijah_Baley]

What, exactly, do you mean by ‘femininity’? Do you mean something like ‘being female’? Or do you mean a set of behaviours, clothes and make-up? If you mean ‘being female’, say so because ‘femininity’ is a term more about presentation.

In what sense does ‘feminism’ define these things?

Personally, I have no appetite for tarts on the cover of Cosmo, and I dislike intensely makeup and hair dye and ludicrous fashions and other typically “feminine” things, but as a man I’ve learned to smile tolerantly when particular women go wild. That’s not what I mean by feminine.

I do mean “being female” when I say femininity. I really mean, essentially, motherhood. I see that feminists deny motherhood very seriously. Feminists seem to define feminine in the sexual dimension, and in the pursuit of equality — proper in the professional field — they demean women to deny the natural consequence of sexual activity just as easily as very bad men do. Rather than raise women up, this has the effect to throwing women into the same gutter as sexually careless men.

Whatever the sexual identity of women, it should not be “sowing your wild oats.” I say this with firm confidence because it should not be the sexual identity of men, either.

Really? Which dogmatic feminists are preaching motherhood as a vice? There may be the odd lesbian feminist who may think so but in what sense are they in a position to be generally heard, never mind be influential?

To the extent that self-described feminists are die-hard proponents of abortion and birth control — worse, that they support abortion as birth control — makes it certainly seem that they disavow motherhood as a unique charge of women.

Vice is probably a bit strong, I suppose, but I do see a great deal of cause for alarm.

The proper role of feminism is to dis-cover (that’s an old radical feminist usage, by the way, it suggests that something has been covered on purpose) and understand the experience of being female, from a female perspective.

Yes! Not to re-cover the masculine vices, claiming them as feminine virtues!

Even I’m enough of a feminist to say that you’re free to say anything, just not to define.

Thanks. That’s a lot more than I’ve gotten from friends of friends, who say I wish to return to the 1950s, that I’d be happier if all the ladies were in a burqa.

This sort of character assassination, this arms-up-in-the-air prejudice in the name of tolerance, does nearly as much to ruin the persuasiveness of feminists as does their support of abortion and birth control. I don’t say this represents feminism as a whole, but it certainly represents feminists I’ve met.

Let’s hope they’re the squeaky wheel. Especially if I cannot help define what it means to be female — in a practical way, this is of course true — I must have faith in women to turn their backs on, rather than to embrace, the evils of men long dead.

 

[Kaninchen]

I do mean “being female” when I say femininity. I really mean, essentially, motherhood. I see that feminists deny motherhood very seriously. Feminists seem to define feminine in the sexual dimension, and in the pursuit of equality — proper in the professional field — they demean women to deny the natural consequence of sexual activity just as easily as very bad men do. Rather than raise women up, this has the effect to throwing women into the same gutter as sexually careless men. . . . .

There seems to be a serious conflation of issues here and one that leads a non-Catholic into very dangerous territory (First Rule of survival on a Catholic Board - “Don’t talk about Sex!”; Second Rule of survival on a Catholic Board - “Don’t talk about not talking about Sex!” )

So, let’s talk about an aspect of sex that might be less dangerous. I’m not an expert on feminist writers but I don’t know of any who would approve of ‘get as much sex as you can as young as you can’ or ‘sex as a commodity’ or ‘commericalisation of sex’. ‘Being in control of your sexuality’ and ‘being in control of your fertility’ yes, they are major feminist themes but being against pornography is one of the biggest feminist themes.

There’s an awful lot of ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ about discussions like these, you know. Feminists didn’t invent contraception, neither did feminists invent the various means of domestic production - like washing machines, vacuum cleaners . . . that turned domestic drudgery into minor tasks. Neither did feminists invent computer aided industrial production and the industrialisation of the Pacific rim.

Women have always been tough, we’ve had to be - those living outside Jane Austen books and 1950’s fantasy, anyway and accepting being subordinate was perhaps the toughest job of all. Moving from that has meant having to deal with men, with the ‘men’s club’ and, yes, that’s a different kind of toughness.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

So, let’s talk about an aspect of sex that might be less dangerous. I’m not an expert on feminist writers but I don’t know of any who would approve of ‘get as much sex as you can as young as you can’ or ‘sex as a commodity’ or ‘commericalisation of sex’. ‘Being in control of your sexuality’ and ‘being in control of your fertility’ yes, they are major feminist themes but being against pornography is one of the biggest feminist themes.

“Controlling fertility” is exactly what I mean! If by female we mean “what naturally makes you not male” how does it not make you a little less female than to change your natural cycle? At the very least, it changes what makes you inherently female, doesn’t it? We agreed — didn’t we? — that feminism was about embracing what makes you female.

Changing part of what makes you female cannot have a positive effect on your ability to embrace being female! You are no longer naturally female; you are unnaturally female, and this is the identity you’re embracing.

There’s an awful lot of ‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ about discussions like these, you know. Feminists didn’t invent contraception, neither did feminists invent the various means of domestic production - like washing machines, vacuum cleaners . . . that turned domestic drudgery into minor tasks.

Nobody can be blamed for something they did not do. Feminists do, by and large, embrace contraception.

I think it’s fair to note that domestic drudgery is a fairly recent invention. Time was that to let a women stay at home rather than march off to the factories was a liberation. Before the factories was farm labor, and that was quite a bit more than drudgery for everyone involved. It’s hard for me not to look at the responsibilities on a farm and come to any conclusion but “different, but coequal.”

Women have always been tough, we’ve had to be - those living outside Jane Austen books and 1950’s fantasy, anyway —

Elizabeth Bennett is pretty tough, you know.

— and accepting being subordinate was perhaps the toughest job of all. Moving from that has meant having to deal with men, with the ‘men’s club’ and, yes, that’s a different kind of toughness.

Part of feminism I’ve never cottoned to has been the adversarial relationship with men. Husbands, boyfriends, brothers; every man becomes an enemy. One time someone got snarky and vitrolic over my disputing her euphemism of reproductive health. I get attacked for being a member of the “rape culture.” She barely knows me, but she knows enough to accuse me of being a rapist-in-secret — that’s what men are.

Feminism like that is like a trade union. Dubious, only sparing value if any at all, and for use only when a woman is a coal miner exploited by the management.

 

[Kaninchen]

“Controlling fertility” is exactly what I mean! If by female we mean “what naturally makes you not male” how does it not make you a little less female than to change your natural cycle? At the very least, it changes what makes you inherently female, doesn’t it? We agreed — didn’t we? — that feminism was about embracing what makes you female.

No, we didn’t agree. I said ‘dis-cover and understand’, I didn’t say ‘ways of learning to accept somebody else’s definition of life tied to your reproductive system’.

Changing part of what makes you female cannot have a positive effect on your ability to embrace being female! You are no longer naturally female; you are unnaturally female, and this is the identity you’re embracing.

My profession is not tied to my reproductive system, therefore I am unnatural?

Nobody can be blamed for something they did not do. Feminists do, by and large, embrace contraception.

Control of one’s own fertility, as I said.

I think it’s fair to note that domestic drudgery is a fairly recent invention. Time was that to let a women stay at home rather than march off to the factories was a liberation. Before the factories was farm labor, and that was quite a bit more than drudgery for everyone involved. It’s hard for me not to look at the responsibilities on a farm and come to any conclusion but “different, but coequal.”

You think catering for the needs for a large family prior to domestic machinery wasn’t drudgery? You do the washing without a washing machine, dryer etc for several people and see what you think then. Women were working in factories throughout the 19th century, what women were not doing was doing any of the jobs that paid.

Part of feminism I’ve never cottoned to has been the adversarial relationship with men. Husbands, boyfriends, brothers; every man becomes an enemy.

Well, endlessly saying ‘No’ to women was and is a pretty aggressive stance.

Feminism like that is like a trade union. Dubious, only sparing value if any at all, and for use only when a woman is a coal miner exploited by the management.

You really don’t like not being regarded as the ‘management’ (even non-exploitative), do you?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

First of all, change for the sake of change is not always good.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, Ed we know.

You hate change.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

“Controlling fertility” is exactly what I mean! If by female we mean “what naturally makes you not male” how does it not make you a little less female than to change your natural cycle? At the very least, it changes what makes you inherently female, doesn’t it? We agreed — didn’t we? — that feminism was about embracing what makes you female.

Changing part of what makes you female cannot have a positive effect on your ability to embrace being female! You are no longer naturally female; you are unnaturally female, and this is the identity you’re embracing.

You think women are defined primarily by their fertility then?

 

[manualman]

You think women are defined primarily by their fertility then?

Well that’s rather a badly distorted caricature, I’d say. I think he’s trying to say that our bodies are not divorced from our souls. The human female body is different from the human male body in ways that are physical manifestations of differences in our souls.

Today’s culture seems to largely believe that the differences between the sexes are limited to meaningless plumbing differences. Some posters here (especially Kaninchen) provide good and thought provoking perspective on the genuine harm done to women by men in the past. But I’m not sure any “side” has this one entirely figured out yet. It appears the word “feminism”, like many words these days, is a rather hard one to define.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, Ed we know.

You hate change.

I reject your broad brush characterization, just so you know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well that’s rather a badly distorted caricature, I’d say. I think he’s trying to say that our bodies are not divorced from our souls. The human female body is different from the human male body in ways that are physical manifestations of differences in our souls.

Today’s culture seems to largely believe that the differences between the sexes are limited to meaningless plumbing differences. Some posters here (especially Kaninchen) provide good and thought provoking perspective on the genuine harm done to women by men in the past. But I’m not sure any “side” has this one entirely figured out yet. It appears the word “feminism”, like many words these days, is a rather hard one to define.

“genuine harm”? Where are the solutions for male-female problems? Don’t ask the radical feminists, they don’t have any answers. Men are the eternal enemy - the ruling class that must be toppled. Just pick up a copy of Das Kapital by Marx.

Radical feminists have devalued sex to ‘casual sex’ followed by ‘just sex.’ Television is guilty of portraying men and women as having brief physical encounters to relieve themselves, which compares more to going to the bathroom than anything called intimacy.

Dates should include lawyers in their thinking. “If you want to be with me, sign here, here and here, but never forget that I’m in charge.” That was the brainwashed woman talking.

If radical feminists want to live their lives in 24/7 warfare against men, fine. I’ll stay out of their way. They can start their own little collective composed entirely of women and tell horror stories about men all day.

In the process, they are denying their true nature and becoming anti-woman, anti-man and anti-baby. And this has recently mutated into “gender neutrality” which is their current hobby. Man, woman, what’s the difference? There isn’t any according to them.

This is nothing but distorted thinking brought about by the same Marxist based ideology that says society must constantly be rearranged and restructured - that the old ways (meaning a few weeks ago) must yield to the new ways.

I reject this in its entirety.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kozlosap]

Nobody can be blamed for something they did not do. Feminists do, by and large, embrace contraception.

Wow, from your expertise on demographics, I can now assume that 99.9% of women in North America and Europe are now feminists?

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Wow, from your expertise on demographics, I can now assume that 99.9% of women in North America and Europe are now feminists?

All poodles are dogs. Not all dogs are poodles. Also, you must mean “15 percent” where you write “99.9 percent.”

You think women are defined primarily by their fertility then?

If by fertility we mean “the ability to bear and give birth to children” and by primarily we mean “inexorably and therefore at least in part,” then yes. But that’s what I mean and not what you said.

No, we didn’t agree. I said ‘dis-cover and understand’, I didn’t say ‘ways of learning to accept somebody else’s definition of life tied to your reproductive system’.

Life is inevitably tied to the reproductive systems. It isn’t so much somebody’s definition of life but everybody’s definition of life. More precisely, it is nobody’s definition of life because it precedes everybody.

My profession is not tied to my reproductive system, therefore I am unnatural?

Not what I said.

Changing part of what makes you female cannot have a positive effect on your ability to embrace being female! You are no longer naturally female; you are unnaturally female, and this is the identity you’re embracing.

Having a period every 28 days, like clockwork, is unnatural. Any identity which requires this must be unnatural. Feminists do require this, as far as I am aware. It’s a hop, skip and a jump to “unnatural identity.”

Control of one’s own fertility, as I said.

Controlling one’s own fertility requires, at times, to deny fertility. Denying fertility while having sex is done only through contraception. Denying fertility after having sex is called abortion.

You think catering for the needs for a large family prior to domestic machinery wasn’t drudgery? You do the washing without a washing machine, dryer etc for several people and see what you think then. Women were working in factories throughout the 19th century, what women were not doing was doing any of the jobs that paid.

“Drudgery” does it a disservice. It was a great deal more work than mere drudgery. So was the man’s job — plowing the fields is not quite Office Space.

Well, endlessly saying ‘No’ to women was and is a pretty aggressive stance.

Because I’m saying no endlessly and at every opportunity? I most certainly am not. I defend merely the biological imperative which even a man knows exists, which is vital to the preservation of the species.

You really don’t like not being regarded as the ‘management’ (even non-exploitative), do you?

Exactly. I’m not the management, I don’t pretend to be the management, and I don’t want to be the management — don’t foist the burden of being burdensome on me, thank you very much.

 

[kozlosap]

All poodles are dogs. Not all dogs are poodles. Also, you must mean “15 percent” where you write “99.9 percent.”

:shrug:I meant what I said (although being somewhat sarcastic with the actual numbers), the vast majority of women in the developed world use some form of artificial birth control as a matter of everyday practice. I’m not sure of the exact numbers for American Catholic women on the use of ABC, but I seem to remember that it is somewhat over 80% that use.

I don’t consider myself a feminist or a traditionalist. I was born in the early 1950’s, college educated, single parent. In order to make sure that my daughter was not subjected to an alcoholic father and the risks there, I did not sue for child support and therefore he was not interested in visitation rights. It is a good thing that my very traditional (yet modern) mother expected me to finish college and develop a career for myself. I was able to provide my child with a nice house, Catholic education (through college) and stability. She will graduate from law school in May. All of us struggle as human beings to do the best we can for our families, and I certainly don’t think that women are any different in that respect. Economic times have forced “traditional” roles to change. It most cases both men and women have to work just in order to make their house payment and save enough money to send their kids to college. IMHO most women do not hate men, I think that it a huge generalization. Maybe I’m coming from a West Coast point of view, but it certainly isn’t the case among my group of friends and family.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

For what it’s worth: According to my statistics, it’s around 76 percent of women who use the pill, have the man use the condom, etc. NFP represents 2-4 percent of women. The pill represents only 15 percent.

IMHO most women do not hate men, I think that it a huge generalization. Maybe I’m coming from a West Coast point of view, but it certainly isn’t the case among my group of friends and family.

Good heavens, no, of course most women don’t hate men. That wasn’t what I intended to say at all, and I hope you didn’t come to that conclusion. My point is that the feminist ideology I’ve rubbed up against — I’m not saying it’s a majority opinion, and I hope it doesn’t represent the trends in feminist thought — comes from women who insist I’m a closeted rapist.

Now, the sample size only includes feminists who had a bone to pick with a complete stranger who happens to be male, so there is necessarily a lot of sampling bias — but we’d be foolish to say this squeaky wheel didn’t exist at all.

As for roles, I have nothing but a casual interest. I wouldn’t mind being the house spouse if it came right down to it. Women do not have to be the homemaker, but if a woman is not a man must be. That can be decided on an individual basis, I think.

But the role women cannot grant to men is the role of mother. Feminism seems to define “woman” by describing everything a woman can do; where I come in is in how it treats the only thing a woman, as opposed to a man, must do.

 

[Kaninchen]

Life is inevitably tied to the reproductive systems. It isn’t so much somebody’s definition of life but everybody’s definition of life. More precisely, it is nobody’s definition of life because it precedes everybody.

Life is inevitably tied to breathing . . . .

Having a period every 28 days, like clockwork, is unnatural. Any identity which requires this must be unnatural. Feminists do require this, as far as I am aware. It’s a hop, skip and a jump to “unnatural identity.”

Err? Feminists require what?

Controlling one’s own fertility requires, at times, to deny fertility. Denying fertility while having sex is done only through contraception. Denying fertility after having sex is called abortion.

First rule of survival for a non-Catholic on a Catholic board: “Don’t talk about sex;” second rule of survival for a non-Catholic on a Catholic board: “Don’t talk about not talking about sex.”

In other words, I’m not prepared to discuss this subject with you.

Because I’m saying no endlessly and at every opportunity? I most certainly am not. I defend merely the biological imperative which even a man knows exists, which is vital to the preservation of the species.

In other words, ‘biology is destiny.’

Or not.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well that’s rather a badly distorted caricature, I’d say. I think he’s trying to say that our bodies are not divorced from our souls. The human female body is different from the human male body in ways that are physical manifestations of differences in our souls.

Today’s culture seems to largely believe that the differences between the sexes are limited to meaningless plumbing differences. Some posters here (especially Kaninchen) provide good and thought provoking perspective on the genuine harm done to women by men in the past. But I’m not sure any “side” has this one entirely figured out yet. It appears the word “feminism”, like many words these days, is a rather hard one to define.

I wish it was a “badly distorted caricature” but life is not that nice or simple.

The idea that a woman’s worth is determined by how many sons she gives birth to and how much she pleases her man (defining her by her fertility and sexuality) used to be widely believed in the West, and is still a commonly held belief in other parts of the world.

My comments were unfortunately relevant.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I reject your broad brush characterization, just so you know.

Peace,
Ed

Your rejection makes my characterization no less valid.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

For what it’s worth: According to my statistics, it’s around 76 percent of women who use the pill, have the man use the condom, etc. NFP represents 2-4 percent of women. The pill represents only 15 percent.

Good heavens, no, of course most women don’t hate men. That wasn’t what I intended to say at all, and I hope you didn’t come to that conclusion. My point is that the feminist ideology I’ve rubbed up against — I’m not saying it’s a majority opinion, and I hope it doesn’t represent the trends in feminist thought — comes from women who insist I’m a closeted rapist.

.

Have they said that your a closeted rapist just because your a man, or because of things you’ve said?