What does God make of feminism?

[marietta]

fix:

“Equal and exactly the same. Like cogs in a machine interchangeable at will.”

Who has the authority to do the changing?

marietta

 

[fix]

fix:

“Equal and exactly the same. Like cogs in a machine interchangeable at will.”

Who has the authority to do the changing?

marietta

No one. Men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same in every aspect. Some see feminism as if men and women are exactly the same and can be interchanged as needed.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Eric_Olsen:

“Popular secular culture”, as you call it, may not align with Roman Catholicism but that does not make the entire population of the US Godless. And I don’t recall any passage from the Bible where it described God “taking Adam’s rib” to make him a companion in the form of woman, and then taking another rib to fabricate a mop handle to place in her hands.

no but many including you feel that the church has to “keep up with the times of society” and not what God thinks is right.

Your suggestion that “God does not care what popular secular culture thinks” sounds as if you believe that God cares only what his soldiers of the Roman Catholic faith think. Would you deny this?

how about any orthodox christian including Catholics?
How about God is not impressed with what popular opinion in our perverted secular is?

And where does the figure “345 million unborn babies” come from? Are you certain this is what you meant to write?

Curious,

marietta

45 million.

 

[wildleafblower]

I am curious why you thought that I was only referring to women and the Catholic priesthood - I thought I had made it clear I was talking about making the best use of people’s talents and was in response to a poster who suggested charitable activities as women’s particular area of service.

I’m the poster. I’d appreciate you calling me Wildleafblower Salonika, it’s clear to see from my previous post 209 to this topic that I was strickly sharing one of the many delightful & fullfilling experiences as a member of the Church. Opportunity to be charitable within the Church is open to it’s family. (I never stated what you suggest, “…charitable activities as women’s particular area of service.”) I sincerely thank and appauld DanteAlighieri for further expressing my viewpoint in a polite manner in msg. 215. Outside the Church I am involved as a volunteer with many organizations besides work-related activies, and of course time spent with family and friends. Plus I have many hobbies and interests. My potential is unlimited thus I’m extremely busy but never too busy to stop by to express myself here.

 

[marietta]

Eric_Olsen:

“How about God is not impressed with what popular opinion in our perverted secular is?” you suggest. This means you believe God is neither favorably impressed nor negatively impressed. In this case, God would have no opinion.

“ah…the old attack the typos and not the argument. nice try,” you snipe. Well, call me a nitpicker, but I find a significant difference between the numbers 45 million and 345 million. In answer to your developing comeback, 45 million lives lost to abortion is indeed a profound and despicable tragedy. *Just don’t downplay *your 300-million-life error. And yes, I do have problems with typographical errors on this forum - and we have all made them, including me - but care does need to be taken in posting so that one’s point can be made as clearly and emphatically as possible.

Is that a problem?

marietta

 

[marietta]

fix:

“Men and women are equal in dignity,” you tell us, “but not the same in every aspect. Some see feminism as if men and women are exactly the same and can be interchanged as needed.”

I agree that men and women share equal dignity and that they are not the same in every aspect. I have days when I wish I were as physically strong as a man so I could do a job without having to ask for help. I have had more days than I can count when being a woman was the biggest drag on this planet. The day my daughter was born was not one of them. Her birth, and my raising her by myself, made me a stronger woman and able to do lots of things I could not or would not have otherwise done without help.

I don’t necessarily feel that men and women are interchangeable, but roles and desires and abilities and gifts do overlap. I worked for 30 years in a field which was testosterone-heavy (and lived the first seven of those years communally as the only woman in a group ranging from 3 to 9). There are vocations and responsibilities which men assume either through desire or need which I want no part of. I certainly would never want to be a priest. (I have met two happy priests in my life: one was a feminist we named “Wild Bill” Elliott, and the other was the priest who married my sister and brother-in-law and months later left the priesthood for his choir director.) But if I wanted to be a truck driver I would want to pursue it unhindered and without judgment.

What’s so threatening about that?

marietta

 

[fix]

What’s so threatening about that?

Nothing.

 

[estesbob]

fix:

“Men and women are equal in dignity,” you tell us, “but not the same in every aspect. Some see feminism as if men and women are exactly the same and can be interchanged as needed.”

I agree that men and women share equal dignity and that they are not the same in every aspect. I have days when I wish I were as physically strong as a man so I could do a job without having to ask for help. I have had more days than I can count when being a woman was the biggest drag on this planet. The day my daughter was born was not one of them. Her birth, and my raising her by myself, made me a stronger woman and able to do lots of things I could not or would not have otherwise done without help.

I don’t necessarily feel that men and women are interchangeable, but roles and desires and abilities and gifts do overlap. I worked for 30 years in a field which was testosterone-heavy (and lived the first seven of those years communally as the only woman in a group ranging from 3 to 9). There are vocations and responsibilities which men assume either through desire or need which I want no part of. I certainly would never want to be a priest. (I have met two happy priests in my life: one was a feminist we named “Wild Bill” Elliott, and the other was the priest who married my sister and brother-in-law and months later left the priesthood for his choir director.) But if I wanted to be a truck driver I would want to pursue it unhindered and without judgment.

What’s so threatening about that?

marietta

Even if the church could change the doctrine , which they cannot, why would they change a doctrine merely to accommodate the whims of a specific culture at a specific point in time? Among the billion or so Catholics on the face of the earth those pressing for female ordination are a very small minority and are found mostly in the industrialized Western countries where religion has been sent to the sidelines. In addition there has been little or no demand for priestesses in the Catholic Church over the last 2000 years. Unless one wants buy into presentism, that is that we are the wisest and most enlightened generation the world is ever known, there really is no reason to change the doctrine to accommodate the current culture .

I do not, by the way, have any problems with you driving a truck ,

 

[Telemachus]

Would this include artificial birth control? Abortion? Maintaining separate checking and savings accounts and investments? If your 12-year-old daughter is stricken with spinal meningitis, who takes time off from a lucrative job to care for her? Would you assume that, since your wife has more natural ability to care for and comfort the child, this responsibility should naturally fall on her?

What do birth control and abortion have to do with the Christian idea of freedom? And you know very well that I can no more answer the question concerning a sick child than you could. The decision has to be made between the husband and wife at the time.

I want to see everyone, men and women, able to make their choices free of coercion.

As do I… or did you miss that part of my response (179)? In particular, I would like to emphasize living free of state-coercion which seeks to impose an egalitarian society on human beings.

Nurturing is on a continuum, and so some men will be further up the line than some women. Also there may be other reasons why a couple decide that the guy will stay home eg his work is more easily done from home.

Of course. Married couples must by nature be flexible. But because human beings are not fixed entities, one can only make decisions concerning “natural order” in a statistical sense, that is, what’s most common and intuitive. Thus, when I talk about “women being more nuturing to children,” you can deny that by drawing up exceptions, but I’m not speaking of “rules” but rather “strong tendencies.”

And that’s my main problem with feminist thought. I see such “strong tendencies” as leading to harmony between the sexes, whereas I think feminists would tend to argue that such tendencies are actually rules imposed by males to dominate women which lead to disharmony between the sexes, things which must be conciously removed from human relations. How can such thinking not lead to perpetual conflict?

Yes, relationships and behaviours based on freedom, respect and people being able to be who they really are. No, in the sense that there is a blueprint for men and a blueprnt for women, to which they must conform.

What men and women have in common is much greater than what is different. No they are not intrerchangeable in the same way as individuals are not interchangeable.

I’m not sure you understood my question before. The idea of a “natural order” concerning relations between men and women isn’t analogous to a “blueprint.” Rather, it is men and women living in harmony with one another by admitting their weaknesses and contributing their strengths. What feminism seems to do is say “yes, there are strengths” while saying “no, there are no weaknesses, just strengths.”

And concerning “more in common than not”, “two halves of the same whole,” makes a lot more sense to me. Otherwise, men and women are mostly self-sufficient as individuals, which in my experience is not true and doesn’t resonate very well with the Christian idea of the whole person.

---

I have another couple of questions for the posters here. Is a man that is not receptive to feminist ideas about human society a threat to women’s freedom and safety? Do traditional ideas about the relations between men and women inevitably lead to discrimination and a taking away of women’s rights as human beings?

 

[fix]

Thus, when I talk about “women being more nuturing to children,” you can deny that by drawing up exceptions, but I’m not speaking of “rules” but rather “strong tendencies.”

Not only tendencies but common sense. Unless, this is seen as simply an artifical construct. Which brings me back to the false notion men and women are exactly the same and interchangeable.

And that’s my main problem with feminist thought. I see such “strong tendencies” as leading to harmony between the sexes, whereas I think feminists would tend to argue that such tendencies are actually rules imposed by males to dominate women which lead to disharmony between the sexes, things which must be conciously removed from human relations. How can such thinking not lead to perpetual conflict?

And how can it lead to authentic understanding of the roles of both men and women? It starts from a faulty premise.

 

[Salonika]

No one. Men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same in every aspect. Some see feminism as if men and women are exactly the same and can be interchanged as needed.

Then they are missing out on and encouraging, the amazing diversity of people.

And also some of those who oppose feminism fall close to seeing all women and all men as interchangeable,

For example, the man should be the breadwinner, so it doesn’t matter if another role would be more appropriate a particular man he should do the one prescribed by society. And it works the other way - if people believe that it a woman’s role to keep the house then if another division of labour suited a couple - forget about it.

 

[Salonika]

onmyknees:

“Equal but different”. “Colored only/White only.”

But it will always be the fault of those upstart women, the ones who can’t be satisfied unless they have it all.

marietta

Marietta you’ve highlighted something that has puzzled me since I first heard of feminism. It’s all women’s fault for not being satisfied with how things are. Often little or no recognistion of how narrow roles were for women and the frustration if you wanted/needed a role wider/outside this, (NB - This is **not ** putting down women’s traditional role as wife and mother but the view that biology is destiny.

What’s also puzzled me was that the reaction wasn’t to look at the current situation but to claim that there was"something wrong" with women who wanted wider roles and what was needed was “help” to change her thinking.

Unhappily this view was not restricted to women, men who wanted more options and people of colour faced the same reaction.

True feminism widens men’s opportunities as well as women’s and affirms people choices.

 

[Salonika]

And concerning “more in common than not”, “two halves of the same whole,” makes a lot more sense to me. Otherwise, men and women are mostly self-sufficient as individuals, which in my experience is not true and doesn’t resonate very well with the Christian idea of the whole person.

Think that for relationships to work those involved need a healthy sense of self-sufficency if they (friendships as well as closer relationships) are to work for all involved.

I have another couple of questions for the posters here. Is a man that is not receptive to feminist ideas about human society a threat to women’s freedom and safety? Do traditional ideas about the relations between men and women inevitably lead to discrimination and a taking away of women’s rights as human beings?

Do I see two new threads here?

 

[marietta]

estesbob writes:

“I do not, by the way, have any problems with you driving a truck.”

And I think you haven’t a worry in the world as far as the ordination of women in the Catholic Church is concerned.

marietta

 

[JEANNIEMAC]

To the poster who said 98% of Americans believe in women’s choice.
Which choice? The choice to engage in sexual relations, or the choice to kill the results of the relationships?

 

[marietta]

In post #232, Solonika writes:

“Marietta you’ve highlighted something that has puzzled me since I first heard of feminism. It’s all women’s fault for not being satisfied with how things are.”

Solonika, I was being facetious there. This opinion is nothing but the weak defense of men and women who cannot embrace the world as everyone’s gift. Those who are stuck in traditional roles (whether they like it or not, whether they admit it or not), those who watch friends make strides and become envious of their progress, those who are only safe and secure when their partner or their children or their employees toe the line - these are some of the people who believe it’s all a woman’s fault for not being satisfied with how things are.

Since the age of 13, “how things were” was not good enough for me. If I didn’t make changes I would be dead or in jail. Change is very difficult for me but, much to my surprise, considering my myriad misadventures in life, I have survived. And I’ve done it living in a man’s world.

I don’t want to live in a man’s world any longer. I want to live free of the demands of cohabitation, the raw and unspoken expectations harbored in a partner’s heart, the misery that comes with inevitable deceit. I want to learn about and enjoy art, music, family, a few good friends, good food, laughter. But I will never again place myself in a position where a man manipulates to get the upper hand over me and pouts when he doesn’t get his way.

I have many very good male friends. They know me and understand me and have much in common with me. I have never had a mutually loving relationship with any man and I have closed the door on the possibility. I do not believe that there is room for me to enjoy true, reciprocal authenticity and honesty in a partnership. I have risen from the ashes of that pipe dream one too many times already.

Life is bigger than marriage and children. God didn’t put colors out there so I could see only shades of grey. I will find evidence of God in His world, not in the world of some insecure man who demands control over my every breath.

What does God make of this? I think God believes I’m just like everyone else: a work in progress.

marietta

 

[Lindacarter]

Earliest form of Feminism.
God did not make woman from the head of man to be above him, nor did He make woman from the feet of man, to be tranpled upon by him. But woman was made from the rib of man, his side. to be by his side. To walk side by side, as equal partners in life.

 

[DLT]

When I hear or see the term “fairer sex”, I remember the generation when many men tipped their hats at women, opened doors for them, were chivalrous, and basically treated women like queens, and I long for its return. Of course it still happens to women who are open to receive it. I have a saying, “If we are rude to gentlemen, we may end up with barbarians.” And so, in many cases, we did. Many a rude man has been treated rudely.

In the newspaper, quite a few years ago, was a story about a man on a bus who got up to give a woman his seat. She took the seat, but preceeded to call him a male chauvinist pig for doing it. Women like that get what they deserve, but the tragedy is that they make it hard for the rest of us.

 

[Salonika]

Marietta, you might have been being facetious when you wrote that some people consider feminism came about because" of those upstart women, the ones who can’t be satisfied unless they have it all." Think your comment is one of those true words spoken in jest.

Some opponents of feminism, or only in favour of minor changes in the roles of men and women, take things that way. Hence going as far as saying that feminists want to take over world, demasculinate men and drag women out of the home away from their children. I want real choice for women and the fact that the present situation is better for women than it was, is no reason to stop the process here.

Don’t men want more options too? Surely the traditional way limited them also. I’m all for more options for them too.

I can remember as a teenager (1960’s) being told that me wanting a career was fine as long as I realised that when (not if) I married and had children I must be prepared to give it up (a few did say put it on hold). My view was that there was a big world out there and I wanted to be part of it.

I also want to (continue to) live free of the demands of cohabitation and other people’s expectations for that’s where I can pursue my outside-of-work interests, spend time with good friends (I don’t have family near by and “onlies” have fewer close relations) and indulge my curiousity. My preference is also due to my personality, I get edgy when people are around all the time -I come home to get energised being by myself and doing things that nurture me so I can go out into the world. My lifestyle would be awful for those who need a lot of company and outsdie stimulation.

My friendships are based on mutual interests and mutual respect and include both men and women.

Yes, we are all a work in progress, think it would be awful to be same now as 5 years ago and that I will be the same as now in 5 years time.

 

[goodknight439]

Earliest form of Feminism.
God did not make woman from the head of man to be above him, nor did He make woman from the feet of man, to be trampled upon by him. But woman was made from the rib of man, his side. to be by his side. To walk side by side, as equal partners in life.

This is what God made of Feminism. How his will got muddled with the right to murder one’s unborn children by choice, has to be the work of evil forces working to create hatred between men and women.

Other than what you wrote Linda, I really do not “know” what true Feminism is. I do know that many different women AND men try to make it into something much less Holy.