What does God make of feminism?

[Sair]

I suggest you look up any credible biography for Betty Friedan.

This is one example to which you keep returning. For your feminism=communism argument to carry any weight, it will need a lot more support.

I speak from and with the Catholic community. The same community I watched gradually poisoned. That turned from calm, rational living to distorted, hyper-sexualized dysfunctional living.

Across the largely Christian Western world, what you call ‘calm, rational living’ was, for many women, more like enforced sedation. When they heard their discontent articulated by outspoken feminists, they responded. What you call dysfunctional living is in large measure a result of men being unwilling to accommodate the human needs of women, because it might mean doing the housework themselves…

What I would say to some women is that solutions need to be found, for each of you. I watched the so-called feminists and heard them speak: “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” What did women want? Power? Money? Control? To be men?

As some of us have been saying, repeatedly, in the hope that it might sink in, what women want is recognition as human beings - not domestic/sexual servants, not lesser entities, but equal to men in every way that counts - socially, intellectually, spiritually, and in their rights to self-determination and the pusuit of opportunities.

 

[Sair]

There were only a few stated goals from the 1970s that I thought were worthwhile: equal pay for equal work, and equal access for comparable ability. The rest centered around birth control and abortion.

Indeed, because reproductive freedom was an important part of women being able to achieve a level playing field with men. Whilst I certainly don’t approve of abortion as a means of birth control, preventive birth control is, in realistic terms, an extremely sensible measure for women to take.

Consider the past, a time the conservatives say was so much ‘better’ - it was a time when a woman’s options were largely limited to marriage and endless pregnancies (if a woman was able to have children, of course - God forbid that she should be discovered to be ‘barren’) or becoming a nun. And if any woman chose not to marry and just decided to pursue the single life without joining a religious order, she would be labelled strange, frigid, untouchable, obviously not wanted by any man and therefore relatively worthless. Even today, too many women measure their worth by their ability to attract a man.

I still live in the Catholic community by the grace of God. Those few shrill voices are gone, replaced by dysfunctional people who have allowed themselves to become what their makers wanted. Hope is what should motivate people. Cooperation. Reconciliation. The feminists were’t offering that. Too many have devolved. Deceived into a way of life that is not as it should be. But still, there are those who persevere.

As a Catholic, you should know that reconcilliation can’t be achieved without true contrition. True contrition can’t be achieved without understanding what one has done wrong. So many people, both men and women, buy into the archaic mindset that feminists have always had to fight against - that men and women must have clearly defined social roles and that their options for what is ‘proper’ for them to do are severely limited. That there is a way of life to which they ‘should’ aspire. There are men who still think they must dominate; there are women who still think they must submit - each regarless of whether they want to, or whether these roles are even suited to their individual personalities. How can a person choose how they want to live, or even learn what will make them happy, when their vision is clouded by a fog of assumptions that society places on them, builds into their minds virtually from birth (unless they are lucky enough to have enlightened parents). This is the real deception - the pervasive social mores that limit people’s options and force them to accept a way of life that really is not how it should be.

 

[Salonika]

edwest2:

I watched the so-called feminists and heard them speak: “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” What did women want? Power? Money? Control? To be men?

There were as many motivations as there were women but behind them all was the belief that we should make our own choices not to have them made for us. For example, we wanted to make sure that girls did not make the choices we made unknowingly that restricted future choices – like not taking the subjects at school that allowed us to go into a wide range of jobs. We also wanted women to have economic freedom so they could choose whether or not to marry and to be able to limit their families.

And no, most of us didn’t want to be men but we wanted the wider variety of roles men had and to judged by our abilities not our looks or our marital status. We were also naïve enough to think that men would prefer partners who lived a wider life and had their own opinions – but we discovered that some men found us threatening.

Hope is what should motivate people. Cooperation. Reconciliation. The feminists weren’t offering that.

They were to many of us and feminism still offers us hope. I could never become reconciled, or advocate that women’s choices, should be restricted to those of the 1950’s. What a waste of talent there was then and what frustration for those who did not fit the mould.

 

[Salonika]

Sair:

How can a person choose how they want to live, or even learn what will make them happy, when their vision is clouded by a fog of assumptions that society places on them, builds into their minds virtually from birth (unless they are lucky enough to have enlightened parents).

Completely agree, Sair. I was very fortunate in having a very enlightened mother who stressed the value of education and believed that women’s decisions should not be dictated by being unable to survive on her own income.

Sair:

Feminism needs to continue because on a global scale, injustice is still happening every day. Women are treated appallingly in so many parts of the world, in most cases much worse than men.

Also agree, we need to do what we can to ensure wider freedoms for all women.

Sair:

Until we are all gender-blind when it comes to rights, choices and self-determination, feminism still has a place in the world. .

Well put. Sadly I don’t see feminism becoming redundant in my lifetime.

 

[edwest2]

Indeed, because reproductive freedom was an important part of women being able to achieve a level playing field with men. Whilst I certainly don’t approve of abortion as a means of birth control, preventive birth control is, in realistic terms, an extremely sensible measure for women to take.

Consider the past, a time the conservatives say was so much ‘better’ - it was a time when a woman’s options were largely limited to marriage and endless pregnancies (if a woman was able to have children, of course - God forbid that she should be discovered to be ‘barren’) or becoming a nun. And if any woman chose not to marry and just decided to pursue the single life without joining a religious order, she would be labelled strange, frigid, untouchable, obviously not wanted by any man and therefore relatively worthless. Even today, too many women measure their worth by their ability to attract a man.

As a Catholic, you should know that reconcilliation can’t be achieved without true contrition. True contrition can’t be achieved without understanding what one has done wrong. So many people, both men and women, buy into the archaic mindset that feminists have always had to fight against - that men and women must have clearly defined social roles and that their options for what is ‘proper’ for them to do are severely limited. That there is a way of life to which they ‘should’ aspire. There are men who still think they must dominate; there are women who still think they must submit - each regarless of whether they want to, or whether these roles are even suited to their individual personalities. How can a person choose how they want to live, or even learn what will make them happy, when their vision is clouded by a fog of assumptions that society places on them, builds into their minds virtually from birth (unless they are lucky enough to have enlightened parents). This is the real deception - the pervasive social mores that limit people’s options and force them to accept a way of life that really is not how it should be.

Since the radical feminists of the 1970s, I have seen no one in the secular world create a situation that will solve the problem. If women are so concerned about helping women, where are the answers?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There were as many motivations as there were women but behind them all was the belief that we should make our own choices not to have them made for us. For example, we wanted to make sure that girls did not make the choices we made unknowingly that restricted future choices – like not taking the subjects at school that allowed us to go into a wide range of jobs. We also wanted women to have economic freedom so they could choose whether or not to marry and to be able to limit their families.

And no, most of us didn’t want to be men but we wanted the wider variety of roles men had and to judged by our abilities not our looks or our marital status. We were also naïve enough to think that men would prefer partners who lived a wider life and had their own opinions – but we discovered that some men found us threatening.

They were to many of us and feminism still offers us hope. I could never become reconciled, or advocate that women’s choices, should be restricted to those of the 1950’s. What a waste of talent there was then and what frustration for those who did not fit the mould.

“waste of talent”? By whose measure? I grew up in that time period. My mother could paint the house, mix cement, do carpentry and other things. She was also feminine. She never understood what those ‘feminists’ were complaining about.

In the past 30 years, I have not seen the feminists offer women anything other than words and a ‘you are a victim’ mindset. The hope you mention is based on what?

On this Catholic forum, I will stress that until men and women truly understand their roles and rediscover the meaning of committed love, there will be conflicts based on distorted perceptions created by feminists. This distorted perception was based on the principle of a power struggle. Men and women were divided into two camps, like two countries. The formula was simple: unless we have the exact same resources as you and unless we are as powerful as you, there will be war. Very sad, and very unBiblical.

Men and women were made to be in a loving, cooperative relationship. The feminists created eternal fear and suspicion, a Cold War between the sexes. I suggest turning to God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Salonika]

edwest2:

In the past 30 years, I have not seen the feminists offer women anything other than words and a ‘you are a victim’ mindset.

There is a big difference to me between telling someone they are a victim and pointing out their limited opportunities and how they can widen them.

The hope mention is based on what?

That you can’t choose what you don’t know about and wider opportunities increase the chance of people (men and women) leading fulfilled lives and children being brought up by parents who want them and who have good parenting skills.

On this Catholic forum, I will stress that until men and women truly understand their roles and rediscover the meaning of committed love there will be conflicts based on distorted perceptions created by feminists.

Feminism encourages relationships that met the needs of those involved not forcing relationships to conform to a set formula. The patterns of the 1950’s of stay-at-home wife and working husband suited some people but were confining to others. Are you sugesting we return to that and the resulting devaluing of people (men and women) who did not marry? Do you think it is loving for those who consider that marriage is not for them to be pressurised into doing so?

 

[edwest2]

I’m still not hearing how feminism actually does anything.

The 1950s stay at home mom while the father worked was the best approach, especially in cities. This way, the mother could help raise her children, get enough rest and when her husband came home, both could enjoy some time with each other and their kids. As housing prices went up, both parents had to work which, in some cases, hurt the children. Now both were tired and additional moneys were spent on day care or kids were allowed to come home and were unsupervised. This did lead to problems.

The 1950s approach led to stability. My mother took part-time work in the neighborhood. She could cut and place linoleum. Other women, single and married, were active in our local church. Intelligence and imagination existed in the 1950s, feminism was not required to bring it out. Neighbors helped neighbors. Sometimes, my mom watched the neighbor’s girl.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that everything was perfect. Crime was there, people got tumors, people were hit by cars. But our doors were unlocked, even at night. Both of our parents were vigilant.

God was the center of my life. Going to church was very important. The lessons I learned in Catholic school were invaluable in forming me and others in the community. Once some people in my community began to think doing wrong was OK, that’s when things began to deteriorate. They were slowly poisoned over a 30 year period and many became Catholic in name only. I don’t want a return to the outward 1950s but, for Catholics, the daily manifestation of the power and love of God needs to return to the level it was at during that time.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m still not hearing how feminism actually does anything.

The 1950s stay at home mom while the father worked was the best approach, especially in cities. This way, the mother could help raise her children, get enough rest and when her husband came home, both could enjoy some time with each other and their kids. As housing prices went up, both parents had to work which, in some cases, hurt the children. Now both were tired and additional moneys were spent on day care or kids were allowed to come home and were unsupervised. This did lead to problems.

The 1950s approach led to stability. My mother took part-time work in the neighborhood. She could cut and place linoleum. Other women, single and married, were active in our local church. Intelligence and imagination existed in the 1950s, feminism was not required to bring it out. Neighbors helped neighbors. Sometimes, my mom watched the neighbor’s girl.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that everything was perfect. Crime was there, people got tumors, people were hit by cars. But our doors were unlocked, even at night. Both of our parents were vigilant.

God was the center of my life. Going to church was very important. The lessons I learned in Catholic school were invaluable in forming me and others in the community. Once some people in my community began to think doing wrong was OK, that’s when things began to deteriorate. They were slowly poisoned over a 30 year period and many became Catholic in name only. I don’t want a return to the outward 1950s but, for Catholics, the daily manifestation of the power and love of God needs to return to the level it was at during that time.

God bless,
Ed

My goodness, have you ever thought of creating a screenplay or a pitch for a sitcom out of that?

In reality it was driving very large numbers of women to tranquilizers.

 

[edwest2]

Unless you’re referring to a song by the Rolling Stones, there is no evidence for that occurring in large numbers. Tranquilizers were perscribed when medically necessary. But my experience with health care is that most doctors were and still are reluctant to prescribe tranquilizers. I suspect you’ve been taken in by a mythology involving bored suburban housewives.

Facts are good.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

Unless you’re referring to a song by the Rolling Stones, there is no evidence for that occurring in large numbers. Tranquilizers were perscribed when medically necessary. But my experience with health care is that most doctors were and still are reluctant to prescribe tranquilizers. I suspect you’ve been taken in by a mythology involving bored suburban housewives.

Facts are good.

God bless,
Ed

We differ greatly in which mythologies we see as closer to reality.

 

[Salonika]

edwest2:

I’m still not hearing how feminism actually does anything.

It sets the preconditions for things to happen - for women to have choice and act on those choice. Also when women have choice men do too.

The 1950s stay at home mom while the father worked was the best approach, especially in cities. This way, the mother could help raise her children, get enough rest and when her husband came home, both could enjoy some time with each other and their kids. As housing prices went up, both parents had to work which, in some cases, hurt the children. Now both were tired and additional moneys were spent on day care or kids were allowed to come home and were unsupervised. This did lead to problems.

I agree that current day society isn’t perfect, as it wasn’t in the 1950’s and never will be. But don’t overlook the part that other factors, like economics, have played in the need for both parents to work. Remember when people were worried about the problems there would be when we only worked 25 hours week as a result of the introduction of technology - we wouldn’t know what to do with all that leisure. What about the contribution of the economic right – people are economic units motivated by greed, don’t offer people assistance because the fact that they need help shows lack of motivation and wanting work-life balance is just plain selfish. Thank goodness that wanting work-life balance is now being viewed more favourably.

The 1950s approach led to stability.

One persons’ stability is another person’s stagnation. Some people thrive on stability, others do not. As soon as we start prescribing roles for people we condemn some to unhappiness.

What the 1950’s also featured was two main worlds – one for men (at work), one for women (at home with the kids) with only some intermingling occurring. Unmarried people, especially women 25+, existed on the periphery. Men and women now interact more to the benefit of both.

I don’t want a return to the outward 1950s but, for Catholics, the daily manifestation of the power and love of God needs to return to the level it was at during that time.

This comment would probably be echoed by people in most churches - but how much of the manifestation was due to the fact that church going then was a norm and the price people paid for not attending.

Certainly the world needs more, not less love. It also needs more, not less acceptance, of the similarities and the differences between people.

 

[edwest2]

Choice? What choice? Feminism became a mouthpiece for abortion and fornication. A great relabeling created the term “reproductive choice,” which followed from the Hippie “free love” which meant sex with anyone. And marriage, according to a Hippie friend of mine during the time period, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” And smoking dope became the norm for most of those people.

So, the United States went from mostly stable family relationships to what we have today. The primary reason is the complete distortion of human sexual conduct, and the creation of separation between men and women.

1960 The Pill
1968 “Don’t trust anyone over 30! Free love! Down with the Establishment!” Oh, “dope is cool.”
1973 Abortion legalized. So-called Adult Bookstores appear all over the country showing images of prostitutes.
1978 National Organization for Women perverts women’s role and establishes a confrontational stance against men. So-called Liberated Women wanted to be called Ms. The Equal Rights Amendment shows Feminism including the LGBT community.
1980s Sue Ellen drinking liquor straight out of the bottle on Dallas. Scenes suggesting fornication
Porn on cable in motels. No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country
1990s Let’s throw in profanity, Shock Jocks, profanity in music, profanity on the radio. Porn on the internet. Shacking up.
2000s If you’re in your 40s, odds are you’re on marriage 2 or 3, or shack up 4 or 5.

The Sex and the City, totally dysfunctional template, has taken over the lives of too many. The Catholic Church has a lot to say to men and women if they are willing to follow what it teaches. The current society is not going in a good, worthwhile direction, both on a spiritual and practical level.

God bless,
Ed

 

[marietta]

My mother could paint the house, mix cement, do carpentry and other things. She was also feminine.

Ed, Ed, can’t you see the narrowness and exclusiveness of your depiction of men’s and women’s roles? What is it about painting that is inherently masculine? Any woman can drive a nail and many women are exquisitely artistic at woodworking. So what is it about working with wood that makes it singularly masculine? And speaking of your mother, you remark, "She was also feminine." What do you consider to be feminine? What are you pining for that just isn’t available to you anymore? Did you look for your mother’s femininity in your spouse? Did you also look for traits which you consider to be masculine in considering the worth of a potential mate?

“The 1950s stay at home mom while the father worked was the best approach, especially in cities,” you tell us. “This way, the mother could help raise her children, get enough rest and when her husband came home, both could enjoy some time with each other and their kids.”

I grew up in the suburbs, 15 miles from the Pentagon. My mother didn’t “help” raise the children, she raised the children. There were four of us kids, my mother didn’t drive, she was never rested because she was dealing with a drunk husband and juvenile delinquent children. When “her husband came home” there were fights behind closed doors about booze, money, bad report cards, school suspensions, weapons charges, dope - she never got a minute except when she took a taxi to Al Anon every Tuesday night to get out of the house and share her experience with other (mostly) women who had similar problems trying to get from one day to the next. There were four girls on my street who were victims of molestation and violent sexual assault, and I was one of them. Air raid sirens were going off with regularity because of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Alcoholism was the norm in our middle class neighborhood.

“Tranquilizers were perscribed when medically necessary,” you claim. *“But my experience with health care is that most **doctors were and still are reluctant to prescribe tranquilizers. I **suspect you’ve been taken in by a mythology involving bored **suburban housewives.” * Doctors today are only too happy to prescribe downers to women because it is easier than listening to, and hearing, and understanding the problems that women are coming to them with, particularly if they do not have insurance. There is nothing mythological about the bored suburban housewife (you watch too much t.v., Ed: “Sex and the City” and, what, “Desperate Housewives”? *“1980s: Sue Ellen drinking liquor **straight out of the bottle on Dallas. Scenes suggesting **fornication.” *? If they’re so contaminated and skewed, why are you watching them? And if you’re not watching them, how are you qualified to criticize them? On what are you basing your opinions?)

Tranquilizers, like all drugs, are very easy to get without a prescription. Top dollar will be paid for them, but they are easily had. And tranqs are not the only drugs men and women are taking today - corporate businessmen and women snorting cocaine to stay on top of their game, smoking a little weed at the end of the day to take the edge off. And then there’s that long lunch with the inviting cocktail selection. Don’t think this has all developed since Betty Friedan came on the scene. Mind- and mood-altering chemicals have been used for millenia.

You say, *"I’m still not hearing how feminism actually does *anything." One thing that is has done for me is to pull me out of the shadow of my father, my brothers, my ex-husband, my bosses so that I can see myself in the sunlight of the Spirit and not through the eyes of people who are trying to mold me, control me, shut me up, make me behave, abandon my dreams, disown myself. Once I got out from under that shroud I was able to come to love some of them and pray for the rest of them.

I am not a man. I don’t want to be a man. Nor am I a waitress and sex object and secretary and ego-booster in my own home. I’m not a China doll. I’m not June Cleaver. Nor am I Angela Davis. I’m a human being created by God to meet or exceed His expectations of me, not yours. Feminism is a celebreation of self, but not in the way you insist on framing it. It’s approaching life with honesty, openmindedness and willingness enough to honor the gifts and talents that God has given us. In that regard, we should all be feminists.

marietta

 

[edwest2]

Feminism was about separation, not equality.

God bless,
Ed

 

[marietta]

Feminism was about separation, not equality.

If this was true, as you say, then what is feminism today?

marietta

 

[Sair]

You say, *"I’m still not hearing how feminism actually does *anything." One thing that is has done for me is to pull me out of the shadow of my father, my brothers, my ex-husband, my bosses so that I can see myself in the sunlight of the Spirit and not through the eyes of people who are trying to mold me, control me, shut me up, make me behave, abandon my dreams, disown myself. Once I got out from under that shroud I was able to come to love some of them and pray for the rest of them.

I am not a man. I don’t want to be a man. Nor am I a waitress and sex object and secretary and ego-booster in my own home. I’m not a China doll. I’m not June Cleaver. Nor am I Angela Davis. I’m a human being created by God to meet or exceed His expectations of me, not yours. Feminism is a celebreation of self, but not in the way you insist on framing it. It’s approaching life with honesty, openmindedness and willingness enough to honor the gifts and talents that God has given us. In that regard, we should all be feminists.

marietta

Thank you, Marietta, for being so eloquent and moving on this subject. It often takes profound personal experiences to make people understand that there really is more out there than can be encompassed by a narrow prescription of what is ‘best’ for people and society in general.

I fully appreciate what you say about doctors and their willingness to prescribe medication rather than really understand the core of a person’s problem. In Western Australia, where I live, we have the highest rate of drug-prescription in this country for suspected cases of ADHD, just as an example. Why analyse a problem when you can pop a pill and make it (temporarily) disappear?

The thing is, although I’m only 31, there’s very little that truly shocks me anymore. Saddens and horrifies, yes, but there aren’t many surprises. I certainly wouldn’t go around saying that some things don’t happen, just because I’d like to believe they don’t.

The trouble with the ‘1950s’ mindset is that it wants to fit square pegs in round holes, and ya just can’t do that without a whole lotta pain.

 

[Salonika]

edwest2:

So, the United States went from mostly stable family relationships to what we have today. The primary reason is the complete distortion of human sexual conduct, and the creation of separation between men and women.

The separation between men and women was much more a feature of the 1950’s than later. Most married women with children in the home raising their children with a limited life outside and usually involving contact with other women with children. Most men at work during the day. Unmarried women in the workforce until they marrried when they were expected to either leave or to do so as soon as they became pregnant as if they didn’t they would then be taking a job from a man.

How can men and women learn how to be complementary if they have limited contact with each other. Feminism didn’t create the separation of men and women, it was a reaction against it.

1978 - So-called Liberated Women wanted to be called Ms.

Again a reaction to the existing situation - and why not? Why do people need to know a woman’s martial status - if it’s relevant people can ask the same as for guys.

2000s - If you’re in your 40s, odds are you’re on marriage 2 or 3, or shack up 4 or 5.

A generalisation - if its true I’ve beaten the odds - no marriages, no what you call “shacks up” and less stigma as an unmarried woman now than there would have been in the 1950’s or 1960’s.

Would you add to the number of marriages/“shack-ups” for those of us who came of age in the1960’s.

 

[Salonika]

Sair:

The trouble with the ‘1950s’ mindset is that it wants to fit square pegs in round holes, and ya just can’t do that without a whole lotta pain.

Congratulations, Sair, on your short pithy summary of what I have been trying to say.

 

[Vladi]

Feminism is a disaster, Low birthrates the abortion rates the rise of materlist culture all are to blame on feminsts. The West is dying the irony of course is that when the Islamists take over women REALLY will be slaves. But I guess most women are too stupid to forsee this taking into account what they vote for.