True Feminism

[Kaninchen]

Assumption : The men were terribly happy (fallacy 1), at the expense of women (fallacy 2). Today, women are happier (fallacy 3), and there have been no negative consequences for men or society (fallacy 4).

Assumption 2 : Those “naughty women” magically self-granted themselves every license or liberty without any male support or approval (a laughable proposition, but feminists like to imagine it).

I’ve already said that I’m not capable of dealing with your great abilities.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Assumption : The men were terribly happy (fallacy 1), at the expense of women (fallacy 2). Today, women are happier (fallacy 3), and there have been no negative consequences for men or society (fallacy 4).

Assumption 2 : Those “naughty women” magically self-granted themselves every license or liberty without any male support or approval (a laughable proposition, but feminists like to imagine it)(QUOTE).

Why are you responding to something that no one has actually said Tim?

Feminism is the most anti-idealstic ideology I have ever encountered(OUOTE.)

Then you need to get out more Tim.

Christ is life living in its entirety and fullness. You cannot treat acedia with materialism. It is a one way street to misery(OUOTE.)

If your trying to make a point, at least spell the important words correctly.

The final and most brazen evil of feminism : it entirely disregards the welfare of the other 50% of the adult population. It doesn’t consider the welfare and happiness of children AT ALL : it’s as selfish as Scrooge on Christmas Eve. It fails to recognize that society is a composition of male and female, and both have a place in it, with each one’s welfare and well-being being intrinsically connected to the overall well-being of society as a whole (OUOTE.)

Patriarchy can hurt children too, specifically little girls. A lot of Asian societies are so patriarchal and misogynistic that they are aborting most females before their born at this point (now that people have the technology to detect the sex of a fetus in the womb). The worst offenders in this regard are China and India.

Here is a recent news article on the subject: economist.com/node/15606229

Final thoughts :

1. Whenever we talk about feminism we often talk about culture and civilization. Culture arises from cult. And civilization arises in which societies ? Find one civilization that isn’t founded upon patriarchal principles.
2. Now I shouldn’t have to point out to Christians the fact that feminism has a problem with fatherhood. Not a few feminists have advocated that women possess multiple partners, abstain from marriage until whenever, and conceal the paternity of their children. It is entirely logical for non-Christian societies to be threatened or terrified by fatherhood - even understandable - for they do not possess a worthy model of and for fatherhood. But Christians have God as Father, who is Himself the model and “source of all fatherhood,” as St Paul instructs. We have the revelation of the Father and the Son. We aso have Mary as mother to boot : we’re rich beyond all imagination, because our foundation is strong, perfect and pure. Feminism is nothing but a cheap, man-made susbstitute(OUOTE.)

Your final thoughts need rethinking.

First you claim that most societies are based on patriarchy, then you accuse non-Christians of being afraid of fatherhood. But how can societies (even non-Christian ones) based on patriarchy be afraid of fatherhood?

A reverence (or at least profound respect) for fatherhood is one of the defining characteristics of patriarchy.

 

[AcolyteLector]

You think women are defined primarily by their fertility then?

I wouldn’t call myself particularly feminist.
I wouldn’t call myself particularly misogynistic or in anyway opposed to feminism’s ideals (in any of the generations that feminism has spawned).

But if you stood out in Grand Central, and queried the businesswomen going home to their suburban homes–and told them they could either keep their fertility (… or what remains of it…) or their careers, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of these women would choose their fertility.

 

[Kaninchen]

But if you stood out in Grand Central, and queried the businesswomen going home to their suburban homes–and told them they could either keep their fertility (… or what remains of it…) or their careers, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of these women would choose their fertility.

I would expect that it would rather depend on their age amongst other things - ask any businessman a career/impotency question, I’d expect the vast majority would be pretty conflicted as well.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I would expect that it would rather depend on their age amongst other things - ask any businessman a career/impotency question, I’d expect the vast majority would be pretty conflicted as well.

Well, I guess it would be irrelevant to ask post-menstrual women if they’d prefer their fertility to their careers. I thought this was implied, but I guess not.

It would be slightly different for a businessman. Are you sure you meant impotency–or infertility?

The same question posed to businessmen would also have different implications for the man. A career-minded woman who decides to raise children usually has a relatively successful mate upon whom she can ‘fall back on’ while she is carrying the child. This is not socially-unacceptable.

If a man chooses fertility–over a career–statistics suggest that he will suffer emotional and even health problems, from the traditional expectations placed upon men as the ‘breadwinner’.

I wouldn’t disagree that fertility would probably be a priority for many men, but that it has to be hedged with certain other considerations that affect men.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, I guess it would be irrelevant to ask post-menstrual women if they’d prefer their fertility to their careers. I thought this was implied, but I guess not.

You’re talking to a woman in her early-40’s with children who isn’t ‘post-menopausal’ and for whom the question would have far less ‘meaning’ than when I was in my 20’s.

It would be slightly different for a businessman. Are you sure you meant impotency–or infertility?

Oh, I was very sure of what I was saying.

 

[AcolyteLector]

You’re talking to a woman in her early-40’s with children who isn’t ‘post-menopausal’ and for whom the question would have far less ‘meaning’ than when I was in my 20’s.

Oh, I was very sure of what I was saying.

(1) OK, I see. My point was, if a women is beyond child-bearing age, the prospect of losing her fertility should be a non-issue because she doesn’t have it anymore. I don’t claim any special expertise on the biology behind how the female body works, only that the clock stops ticking, eventually.

(2) Maybe its just me, but I’d definitely prefer impotency over losing my career, but not infertility over losing my career. Seems like such a clear cut choice, especially with Viagra &c. on the market.

 

[Kaninchen]

(1) OK, I see. My point was, if a women is beyond child-bearing age, the prospect of losing her fertility should be a non-issue because she doesn’t have it anymore. I don’t claim any special expertise on the biology behind how the female body works, only that the clock stops ticking, eventually.

(2) Maybe its just me, but I’d definitely prefer impotency over losing my career, but not infertility over losing my career. Seems like such a clear cut choice, especially with Viagra &c. on the market.

The problem with your ‘dilemma’ was that it proposed a too simple ‘either/or’ - which is why I chose impotence for the male alternative. It’s something core to male be-ing, not just physically but psychologically.

If you’d said to me when I was a post-Grad, “give up or you’ll never have children” then it would have given me pause, if you say it to me now, I’d not be bothered in the slightest.

 

[larkin31]

I wouldn’t call myself particularly feminist.
I wouldn’t call myself particularly misogynistic or in anyway opposed to feminism’s ideals (in any of the generations that feminism has spawned).

But if you stood out in Grand Central, and queried the businesswomen going home to their suburban homes–and told them they could either keep their fertility (… or what remains of it…) or their careers, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of these women would choose their fertility.

So what? No one claims that fertility isn’t important. Feminism is about giving individual women the freedom to decide for themselves *what is of value and to what degree. * At least in your scenario you ask the women.

 

[AcolyteLector]

So what? No one claims that fertility isn’t important. Feminism is about giving individual women the freedom to decide for themselves *what is of value and to what degree. * At least in your scenario you ask the women.

Biology.

 

[AcolyteLector]

The problem with your ‘dilemma’ was that it proposed a too simple ‘either/or’ - which is why I chose impotence for the male alternative. It’s something core to male be-ing, not just physically but psychologically.

If you’d said to me when I was a post-Grad, “give up or you’ll never have children” then it would have given me pause, if you say it to me now, I’d not be bothered in the slightest.

Okay, fair enough again.

I think that your approach was rightly feminist, but mine was just more humanist: I really can’t see fertility not being important for the majority of the people answering, regardless of gender.

Especially, I think, for women whose fertility is roughly contained in a 20+/- year stretch of their lives.

 

[larkin31]

Biology.

Biology is not a mandate nor a prison. It is a potential, one of many available to a person, male or female. We are free to access the potentials of our choosing. At least feminists argue so.

 

[egm85]

I hope I’m reading all this incorrectly. It seems that people are defining a woman by the ability to drop babies. How offensive.

I had a doctor’s appointment when I was 16 where I was told I would never have kids. The news was actually more devastating to my mother; I had always pictured myself as a single, career-driven woman. There were still times in the beginning, though, that I would find myself walking down the halls of my high school, looking at other girls with jealousy because what hid beneath their Catholic school uniforms were fertile reproductive organs. I was a biological failure.

Today, I wouldn’t have it any other way. My infertility means that I can pursue my passion and help *more *people than just children I would have borne. To me, that makes me a strong feminine individual. Femininity isn’t a June Cleaver kind of deal; I don’t have to prove my womanhood by doing dishes and waiting for my children/husband to get home. I display fem. by nurturing, teaching (without being condescending), learning (with an open mind), caring about people and the world around me, and being able to put on a little CoverGirl because I want to, not because society mandated it.

I just ask that you please don’t define femininity by fertility. Otherwise, what am I?

 

[AcolyteLector]

Biology is not a mandate nor a prison. It is a potential, one of many available to a person, male or female. We are free to access the potentials of our choosing. At least feminists argue so.

We’re not dealing absolutes, so you misinterpreted my one-word reply. tee hee

I am not saying that biology will force us to arrive at a certain state of mind.

I am saying that biology will force us to live with many feelings that are usually instrumental at arriving at a certain state of mind, and are very difficult to overcome.

 

[larkin31]

We’re not dealing absolutes, so you misinterpreted my one-word reply. tee hee

I am not saying that biology will force us to arrive at a certain state of mind.

I am saying that biology will force us to live with many feelings that are usually instrumental at arriving at a certain state of mind, and are very difficult to overcome.

Feminism does not deny this. So I don’t know why you are bringing it up as a contrary.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I hope I’m reading all this incorrectly. It seems that people are defining a woman by the ability to drop babies. How offensive.

I had a doctor’s appointment when I was 16 where I was told I would never have kids. The news was actually more devastating to my mother; I had always pictured myself as a single, career-driven woman. There were still times in the beginning, though, that I would find myself walking down the halls of my high school, looking at other girls with jealousy because what hid beneath their Catholic school uniforms were fertile reproductive organs. I was a biological failure.

Today, I wouldn’t have it any other way. My infertility means that I can pursue my passion and help *more *people than just children I would have borne. To me, that makes me a strong feminine individual. Femininity isn’t a June Cleaver kind of deal; I don’t have to prove my womanhood by doing dishes and waiting for my children/husband to get home. I display fem. by nurturing, teaching (without being condescending), learning (with an open mind), caring about people and the world around me, and being able to put on a little CoverGirl because I want to, not because society mandated it.

I just ask that you please don’t define femininity by fertility. Otherwise, what am I?

I don’t think very many people here would say that. I don’t think the Catholic Church would align itself with this view, either.

I was only making the much more limited claim that fertility is usually important and life-defining… to both men and women.

 

[egm85]

I don’t think very many people here would say that. I don’t think the Catholic Church would align itself with this view, either.

I was only making the much more limited claim that fertility is usually important and life-defining… to both men and women.

Fertility being important to people has nothing to do with being masculine or feminine though. I just don’t understand why it’s being brought up at all. It’s like saying, “true feminism means you have two legs”. Sure, *most *women have two legs (just like *most *women have fertility), but is that what defines the societal definition of “feminism”?

Remember, there is a difference between being female and being feminine. One is a biological definition (which would include chromosomes and fertility). One is societal–nothing to do with babies. I thought the discussion was one of societal construct, not of the biological definition.

 

[AcolyteLector]

Fertility being important to people has nothing to do with being masculine or feminine though. I just don’t understand why it’s being brought up at all. It’s like saying, “true feminism means you have two legs”. Sure, *most *women have two legs (just like *most *women have fertility), but is that what defines the societal definition of “feminism”?

Remember, there is a difference between being female and being feminine. One is a biological definition (which would include chromosomes and fertility). One is societal–nothing to do with babies. I thought the discussion was one of societal construct, not of the biological definition.

A fair question, and I agree with your second paragraph. .

I’m sorry, I think I butted into this thread without any purpose, whatsoever. I would delete my posts to keep the thread clearer, but CAF doesn’t allow post deletions by users. :christmastree1: