What does God make of feminism?

[marietta]

elts1956 writes:

“Say, what you will, with support women can achieve anything, at least mentally, that men can do and they can do one thing men will never be able to do, have children, and do it ALL very well.”

I do find this remark derogatory, rather like a pat on the head and a dismissive “that’s all right, dear, now go on outside and play.” And your subcategory of “at least mentally” excludes women’s abilities and strides in the arts, and even in the religious and spiritual realm.

Dale_M comes to elts’ defense with this:

“Marietta, I think Elts was simply being honest. In general, men are physically stronger than women. And any accomplishments we have in life will be achieved with the support of others. The myth of the self-made man has always been a fiction.”

elts was simply offering an honest opinion, one which appears to take its lead from the “old school” of thought on women and our “place” in our society, and also one which seems to be attempting to bridge the gap between “old school” and “new school” without an appreciation for the indignities women have suffered at the hands of men, particularly in the 20th and 21st Centuries, or an understanding of the changes that have been hard-fought and hard-won for women in our lifetime.

I also contend that men may be physically stronger for the sprint, but women are physically stronger for endurance.

marietta

 

[Peripatetic]

“Even though she doesn’t have any apparent injuries sir, she does claim that you attacked her. She also claims that those minor scratches on your face are from your fall while you were attacking her. Therefore, I must issue a Restraining Order against you and charge you with Domestic Violence.”
Quote by Judge, I. M. Godly

Click here to read, (www.FramedFathers.com)

Thank You,
PrancnWolf
Blairsville, Georgia

F.R.A.M.E.D. (Fathers Rights And Men Ending Discrimination)
Website / Blog: (www.FramedFathers. com)

MySpace Website:
( www.myspace. com/prancnwolf)

I do not think God is pleased with this form of feminism…

 

[elts1956]

I underlined the portion that jumped out as I was reading it. Is it really all about power in the end?

Hello. I don’t think only one element is involved in trying to negotiate an issue. Given the fact this era in history may be (my history isn’t THAT good) the only one to evolve since perhaps the times of the Romans, that gives freedoms to women, we should congratulate ourselves. We have more equality of the sexes than at any other time of History, that I know of. This equality has come at much loss, but also at much gain.

There are many downsides to this freedom. It hasn’t all been cream and strawberries. We have lost many from the Traditional family unit. Because parents are so busy now with both Mom and Dad working outside the home, we many times have children who cannot be given the attention they need and crave. We have teenagers who now listen more to their peer group, or gang, than Mom or Dad, or the Church, sometimes with very negative consquences… Many children are without the structure that gives them the security they need, or the structure is the wrong one.

The upside is, given an adequate education,a single woman especially, can now find a job that will help toward supporting herself and her children, if need be. There are many single parent families today, too many. But at least, because of the insistence of women to have equal rights, equal education, (still fighting for equal pay) and to be respected as an individual, the lives of some women have gotten better.

You ask if all this disentanglement with Traditional roles of women is about power. Well consider this:

1870 Black men were given voting rights, only the men. There was much trouble with this black vote which was fought tooth, nail through intimidation, through lynchings by whites until the 60s, I believe.

In 1893 Colorado was the first state to adopt an amendment granting women the right to vote. Utah and Idaho follow suit in 1896, Washington State in 1910, California in 1911, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Alaska and Illinois in 1913, Montana and Nevada in 1914, New York in 1917; Michigan, South Dakota, and Oklahoma in 1918

1913 - Alice Paul and Lucy Burns form the Congressional Union to work toward the passage of a federal amendment to give women the vote. The group is later renamed the National Women’s Party. Members picket the White House and practice other forms of civil disobedience.

1920-Aug. 26: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote, is signed into law by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby.

So yes, I would say, in this instance at least, power was what it was all about. In other instances it was the insistence by women to have the opportunity to strenghten their self esteem through use of other skills in addition to those of motherhood. The drive to find one’s place in the world, whether it be in the home, or at a board meeting is no different than the drive men have. The only exception though is, as one poster has said, few men are “called” to real fatherhood. What do you think?

 

[elts1956]

elts1956 writes:

“Say, what you will, with support women can achieve anything, at least mentally, that men can do and they can do one thing men will never be able to do, have children, and do it ALL very well.”

I do find this remark derogatory, rather like a pat on the head and a dismissive “that’s all right, dear, now go on outside and play.” And your subcategory of “at least mentally” excludes women’s abilities and strides in the arts, and even in the religious and spiritual realm.

Dale_M comes to elts’ defense with this:

“Marietta, I think Elts was simply being honest. In general, men are physically stronger than women. And any accomplishments we have in life will be achieved with the support of others. The myth of the self-made man has always been a fiction.”

elts was simply offering an honest opinion, one which appears to take its lead from the “old school” of thought on women and our “place” in our society, and also one which seems to be attempting to bridge the gap between “old school” and “new school” without an appreciation for the indignities women have suffered at the hands of men, particularly in the 20th and 21st Centuries, or an understanding of the changes that have been hard-fought and hard-won for women in our lifetime.

I also contend that men may be physically stronger for the sprint, but women are physically stronger for endurance.

marietta

You got that right Marietta. Otherwise how did we endure for all those centuries placed, by society in general, (not talking about you wonderful individual guys here), into one mold and not allowed to break it?

 

[fix]

Hello. I don’t think only one element is involved in trying to negotiate an issue. Given the fact this era in history may be (my history isn’t THAT good) the only one to evolve since perhaps the times of the Romans, that gives freedoms to women, we should congratulate ourselves. We have more equality of the sexes than at any other time of History, that I know of. This equality has come at much loss, but also at much gain.

There are many downsides to this freedom. It hasn’t all been cream and strawberries. We have lost many from the Traditional family unit. Because parents are so busy now with both Mom and Dad working outside the home, we many times have children who cannot be given the attention they need and crave. We have teenagers who now listen more to their peer group, or gang, than Mom or Dad, or the Church, sometimes with very negative consquences… Many children are without the structure that gives them the security they need, or the structure is the wrong one.

The upside is, given an adequate education,a single woman especially, can now find a job that will help toward supporting herself and her children, if need be. There are many single parent families today, too many. But at least, because of the insistence of women to have equal rights, equal education, (still fighting for equal pay) and to be respected as an individual, the lives of some women have gotten better.

You ask if all this disentanglement with Traditional roles of women is about power. Well consider this:

1870 Black men were given voting rights, only the men. There was much trouble with this black vote which was fought tooth, nail through intimidation, through lynchings by whites until the 60s, I believe.

In 1893 Colorado was the first state to adopt an amendment granting women the right to vote. Utah and Idaho follow suit in 1896, Washington State in 1910, California in 1911, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Alaska and Illinois in 1913, Montana and Nevada in 1914, New York in 1917; Michigan, South Dakota, and Oklahoma in 1918

1913 - Alice Paul and Lucy Burns form the Congressional Union to work toward the passage of a federal amendment to give women the vote. The group is later renamed the National Women’s Party. Members picket the White House and practice other forms of civil disobedience.

1920-Aug. 26: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote, is signed into law by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby.

So yes, I would say, in this instance at least, power was what it was all about. In other instances it was the insistence by women to have the opportunity to strenghten their self esteem through use of other skills in addition to those of motherhood. The drive to find one’s place in the world, whether it be in the home, or at a board meeting is no different than the drive men have. The only exception though is, as one poster has said, few men are “called” to real fatherhood. What do you think?

I think that my point was it is a real shame if “feminism” is defined as emulating those aspects of men that are not authentically masculine as in a rapacious desire for power.

If power over others is seen as freedom then we need to look deeper into what the faith actually teaches on power, freedom, and service.

 

[onmyknees]

BlestOne: Thanks for posting here. I really like reading what you have to say. As a man, I can say exactly what you’re saying, and it doesn’t matter one lick. But for a working mother like yourself (like my mother too), feminists have to be quiet and listen.

The rest of you (including myself): After reading BlestOne’s posts, just go home people. I’ve been reading the rest of this thread, and we’re all just talking past one another. It’s “How dare you say that, feminism is about this” and then “How dare you say this, feminism is about that” back-and-forth.

What’s especially funny is the little side chats that some of the feminist posters have been having, “circlin’ th’ waguns” on a Catholic forum. Give it a rest.

And I’m disappointed at some of the Catholic posters that have been on here, bringing female priests and abortion into the works. Of course these issues are linked, but bringing this stuff up just added to the confusion. As Jimmy Akin is wont to say, “more heat than light” has been generated, and it seems to always go this way with such threads.

Hi Telemachus, I brought up abortion because some of these women had mentioned that they would not have an abortion themselves but that they were ok with other women making this choice. I wasn’t trying to argue but to enlighten them. Jesus calls us to help others see His Truth.
[SIGN][SIGN]

[/SIGN][/SIGN]

 

[goodknight439]

Almost every woman I know is a REAL feminist. WHAT? Yes.

Who: Almost all of my colleagues at work who are women, the women parishioners of my Church, my friends wives and the best of all - MY WIFE!

Why: Some balance a professional career and their responsibilities as a Mom and Wife and give of themselves as a volunteer. Some are single women and/or widows who have wonderful callings in their careers and give of themselves in other ways. Some choose to run a home, raise children and support their husband as her main gig. The point is they all are all wonderful humans who THANK GOD are WOMEN! However there 2 things they have in common, 1) NONE of them call themselves “feminists” 2) NONE of them has a chip on her shoulder.

 

[marietta]

goodknight439:

And what about your men friends? That’s the part that interests me.

Oh, I know you’ve put me on permanent “ignore” and I don’t consider that a loss, but maybe one of these other wise posters will bring this to your attention.

Women have no reason not to be feminists. Some men have every reason not to support feminism.

marietta

 

[elts1956]

I think that my point was it is a real shame if “feminism” is defined as emulating those aspects of men that are not authentically masculine as in a rapacious desire for power.

If power over others is seen as freedom then we need to look deeper into what the faith actually teaches on power, freedom, and service.

Rather than power, think empowerment. With empowerment comes the power of choice.

 

[neat62]

I’m pretty sure that God loves feminism. I’m sure that He loves the breakup of the family, divorce rates, women conceiving children without a man, promiscuity, cohabitation, willful and intentional single motherhood, rises in STD’s. I’m sure He is happy with the unintended consequences of feminism. I’m pretty sure that. Yeah.

 

[elts1956]

I’m pretty sure that God loves feminism. I’m sure that He loves the breakup of the family, divorce rates, women conceiving children without a man, promiscuity, cohabitation, willful and intentional single motherhood, rises in STD’s. I’m sure He is happy with the unintended consequences of feminism. I’m pretty sure that. Yeah.

Is there NOTHING GOOD that has come of the feminist movement? Can you name ONE thing?

 

[elts1956]

I’m pretty sure that God loves feminism. I’m sure that He loves the breakup of the family, divorce rates, women conceiving children without a man, promiscuity, cohabitation, willful and intentional single motherhood, rises in STD’s. I’m sure He is happy with the unintended consequences of feminism. I’m pretty sure that. Yeah.

Rather than power, think empowerment. With empowerment comes the power of choice.

To clarify that statement, I DO NOT support abortion. Never have, never will.

 

[neat62]

Is there NOTHING GOOD that has come of the feminist movement? Can you name ONE thing?

Nope…this woman can’t name ONE thing!

 

[marietta]

neat62 writes:

“I’m pretty sure that God loves feminism. I’m sure that He loves the breakup of the family, divorce rates, women conceiving children without a man, promiscuity, cohabitation, willful and intentional single motherhood, rises in STD’s. I’m sure He is happy with the unintended consequences of feminism. I’m pretty sure that. Yeah.”

Do you not think these conditions existed before the rise of feminism? Consider this list (from “Wikipedia”) of people who, over the centuries, suffered from syphilis:

"Notable known and suspected syphilis-infected people in previous centuries
Keys: S - suspected case; † - died of syphilis

Idi Amin (1928-2003) Ugandan dictator S
Maurice Barrymore (1849-1905) actor †
Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867), poet †
Karen Blixen (1885-1962), writer
Manuel Maria Barbosa du Bocage (1765-1805), poet †
António Botto (1897-1959), poet
Camilo Castelo Branco (1825-1890), writer
Beau Brummell (1778-1840), fashion arbiter
Al Capone (1899-1947), gangster †
Randolph Churchill, Lord (1849-1895), British statesman and father of Winston S. Churchill S
Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (1545-1567), second husband of Mary Queen of Scots
Frederick Delius (1862-1934), composer †
Gaetano Donizetti (1797-1848), composer
King Edward VI (1538-1553), King of England and third Tudor monarch S
Mihai Eminescu (1850-1889), poet S
Paul Gauguin (1848-1903), painter †
Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), poet †
King Henry VIII (1491-1547), King of England and second monarch of the Tudor dynasty S
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator S
Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584), Czar of Russia
Scott Joplin (1867/8-1917), composer †
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), communist leader S
Édouard Manet (1832-1883), painter †
Guy de Maupassant (1850-1893), writer †
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900), 19th century German philosopher S
Jack Pickford (1896-1933), actor †
Martin Alonzo Pinzon (1441-1493) captain of the Pinta †
Franz Schubert (1797-1828), composer S
Robert Schumann (1810-1856), composer S
Bedřich Smetana (1824-1884), Czech composer S
Tongzhi (1856-1875), ninth Manchu emperor in the Qing dynasty S
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1864-1901), painter †
John Wilmot (1647-1680), 2nd Earl of Rochester, writer, debaucher S
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), writer S
Hugo Wolf (1860-1903), composer †
Mikhail Vrubel (1856-1910), painter
Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890), painter"

Now, this is just one STD. No need to address every single flag you’re waving. But families did break up, divorces did take place, and all the other societal situations which you list did, in fact, occur with regularity before anyone even spoke of “feminism”.

God must be somewhat dismayed at some of the choices men and women have been making over the centuries, no doubt. But for you to label feminism as the direct cause of these situations is myopic at best.

“Anti-suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women, begun in the late 19th century in order to campaign against women’s suffrage in the United States and Britain. It was closely associated with “domestic feminism”, the belief that women had the right to only freedom within the home.” (Wikipedia) The more I read on this forum, the more I wonder if “domestic feminism” never really disappeared.

Just remember, if it hadn’t been for women paving the way over decades of tumult, come November every woman who has the luxury of posting thoughts on this forum would be stuck at home tendin’ the house and chilluns whilst them menfolk moseyed on down to the votin’ booth.

I don’t know about you, but I intend to move forward.

marietta

 

[elts1956]

Nope…this woman can’t name ONE thing!

What about the attention brought to the fact women earn less than men for doing the same job, same seniority. I would think this would be a help for some women wanting to get away from an abusive husband/supporting children on her own??

Or in the event two salaries are needed to support a family. Wouldn’t this relieve some of the stress on both husband and wife?

 

[marietta]

neat62:

** Originally Posted by elts1956: **
“Is there NOTHING GOOD that has come of the feminist movement? Can you name ONE thing?”

neat62:
“Nope…this woman can’t name ONE thing!”

I am BEGGING you, neat62, to post a picture of yourself shredding your voter registration card.

marietta

 

[neat62]

elts1956;3976955]

What about the attention brought to the fact women earn less than men for doing the same job, same seniority.

What about the women who get jobs over men simply because they are a woman? I’d say they cancel each other out, if that indeed is true that women earn less than men simply because they are a woman. The way lawyers work today, it would be a liability for a company to pay a woman less.

I would think this would be a help for some women wanting to get away from an abusive husband/supporting children on her own??

A minority. And most divorces are not because of abusive reasons or infidelity. Of divorces, 75% of them are instigated by women.

Or in the event two salaries are needed to support a family.

Part of the reason for the need for duel incomes, is because of feminism. The business world knows that two incomes can afford to pay more.

Wouldn’t this relieve some of the stress on both husband and wife?

Only now, there is additional stress on both the men and the woman. Child care costs, loss of quality time, guilt, tired after work, etc, stress on the relationship because everyday is go, go, go.

 

[marietta]

neat62 writes:

“What about the women who get jobs over men simply because they are a woman?”

That would be what? Cocktail waitress? Secretary? Holiday Inn domestic goddess? Or do you mean those dime a dozen women who have been named Chief Executive Officer of, say, ExxonMobil or Hartford Financial Services Group?

“Part of the reason for the need for duel incomes, is because of feminism. The business world knows that two incomes can afford to pay more.”

So feminism begets consumerism? Actually, it’s a Catch 22 for families trying to live decently. I submit that part of the problem is the unrealistic demands placed on parents to provide every little prohibitively expensive technological gadget on the market for their thankless children. The market manipulates the children who manipulate the parents. The waste, the self-centeredness, the peer pressure - that’s not attributable to feminism.

“And most divorces are not because of abusive reasons or infidelity. Of divorces, 75% of them are instigated by women.”

Where does this statistic come from? And do you realize that it does not support your suggestion that “most divorces are not because of abusive reasons or infidelity.” What, then, are the root causes of divorce in the United States today? Would you say money would be a big contributor? Well, then, it would seem that if 75% of our divorces are being brought on by women, and it’s not infidelity, and it’s not abuse, these women must be pretty undone over something. If it’s not enough money, wouldn’t they have to join the workforce out of necessity? This is not feminism. It’s “I need to pay my rent”, or “Little Mary needs to go to the endocrinologist.”

“Only now, there is additional stress on both the men and the woman. Child care costs, loss of quality time, guilt, tired after work, etc, stress on the relationship because everyday is go, go, go.”

With the exception of daily child care costs, you have just described what I consider to be a typical day in a typical family. A woman staying at home with kids is going to be considerably stressed by the time her husband comes home from work.

Why are you compelled to hold feminism responsible for everything that’s gone morally wrong in society? Would you be satisfied if we would just learn where we belong and stay obediently in our place? Is that what* you *do??

marietta

 

[elts1956]

elts1956;3976955]

What about the women who get jobs over men simply because they are a woman? I’d say they cancel each other out, if that indeed is true that women earn less than men simply because they are a woman. The way lawyers work today, it would be a liability for a company to pay a woman less.

A minority. And most divorces are not because of abusive reasons or infidelity. Of divorces, 75% of them are instigated by women. And I wonder what the reason for that is? Do you know for a certainty? Do you have an opinion? Until you, or I, go out to gather the statistics on this, I don’t think either of us can say for a certainty.

We who are against abortion say that even though action has not been taken to repeal roe vs. wade, one life (a baby’s) saved rather than aborted is a positive. Why can’t you say the same of a woman escaping an abusive situation because she can now support herself due to the influence of the feminist movement? Isn’t the women’s suffragate movement giving women the right to vote a part of the feminist movement? Would you want your right to vote taken away from you, no more a voice in national policies, just as women before 1916 and after until the 60s had few legal rights in the home, or in the public forum.

Part of the reason for the need for duel incomes, is because of feminism. The business world knows that two incomes can afford to pay more.

Only now, there is additional stress on both the men and the woman. Child care costs, loss of quality time, guilt, tired after work, etc, stress on the relationship because everyday is go, go, go.

What about the attention brought to the fact women earn less than men for doing the same job, same seniority. I would think this would be a help for some women wanting to get away from an abusive husband/supporting children on her own??

Or in the event two salaries are needed to support a family. Wouldn’t this relieve some of the stress on both husband and wife?

 

[elts1956]

elts1956;3976955]

What about the women who get jobs over men simply because they are a woman? I’d say they cancel each other out, if that indeed is true that women earn less than men simply because they are a woman. The way lawyers work today, it would be a liability for a company to pay a woman less.

A minority. And most divorces are not because of abusive reasons or infidelity. Of divorces, 75% of them are instigated by women.

COLOR=“red”]And I wonder what the reason for that is?

Do you know for a certainty? Do you have an opinion? Until you, or I, go out to gather the statistics on this, I don’t think either of us can say for a certainty.

Part of the reason for the need for duel incomes, is because of feminism. The business world knows that two incomes can afford to pay more.

Only now, there is additional stress on both the men and the woman. Child care costs, loss of quality time, guilt, tired after work, etc, stress on the relationship because everyday is go, go, go.

Stress wasn’t invented by the feminists, nor the movement of. Stress has always been a part of daily, even single and married life.

We who are against abortion say that even though action has not been taken to repeal roe vs. wade, one life (a baby’s) saved rather than aborted is a positive. Why can’t you say the same of a woman escaping an abusive situation because she can now support herself due to the influence of the feminist movement? Isn’t the women’s suffragate movement giving women the right to vote a part of the feminist movement? Would you want your right to vote taken away from you, no more a voice in national policies, just as women before 1916 were made to conform to? Until the 60s we women had few legal rights in the home, or in the public forum.